Legal Opinion
Coakley v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided November 25, 1992No. 90-401PublishedCited by 72 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
The central issue in this appeal is whether the defendants, Maine Bonding and Casualty Company (Maine Bonding) and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul), must indemnify the plaintiffs, Ronald C. Coakley and Coakley Landfill, Inc. (collectively, the Coakleys), for environmental “response” costs imposed or likely to be imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 9601 et seq. (1983 & Supp.…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- AIU Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Hazen Paper Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
- A.Y. McDonald Industries, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1991
- C. D. Spangler Construction Co. v. Industrial Crankshaft & Engineering Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1990
- Trombly v. Blue Cross/Blue ShieldSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1980
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by72 opinions
- Lapham-Hickey Steel Corp. v. Protection Mutual InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1995
- Foster-Gardner, Inc. v. National Union Fire InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Utica Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1993
- Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Employers Insurance of WausauWisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
- Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance v. Bronson Plating Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1994
67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.