Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Insur. v. Fab Tech, et al.

District Court, D. New Hampshire

Decided June 24, 2005No. 03-CV-410-SMPublished

1Opinion of the Court

Cincinnati Insur. v . Fab Tech, et a l . 03-CV-410-SM 06/24/05 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Plaintiff v. Civil N o . 03-cv-410-SM Opinion N o .

2005 DNH 096

Fab Tech, Inc., d/b/a Corle Building Systems; Seacoast Crane Company, Inc.; Peerless Insurance Company a/s/o Crowning Holdings, Inc.; Federal Insurance Company a/s/o Lason Systems, Inc.; and North American Specialty Insurance Company, Defendants O R D E R The Cincinnati Insurance Company (“Cincinnati”) seeks judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify its…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. United States Mutual Accident Ass'n v. BarrySupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  2. United States v. SaxenaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2000
  3. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. v. Lexington Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2003
  4. Rivera v. Philadelphia Theological Seminary of St. Charles Borromeo, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  5. Stidham v. Millvale Sportsmen's ClubSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API