Legal Opinion

Progressive Insurance v. Brown Ex Rel. Brown

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided August 1, 2008No. 2006-507PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDooley, J.

¶ 1. Progressive Insurance Company appeals the superior court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of Kyle Brown for uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. In its ruling, the court concluded that the policy definition of “uninsured motor vehicle,” which excludes any vehicle owned by the insured or a relative, is unenforceable because it violates the public policy expressed in Vermont’s UM statute, 23 V.S.A. § 941(a). On appeal, Progressive argues that Brown is not entitled to UM coverage based on the definition in the policy, and also raises several new arguments for the first time. We conclude that…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Fitzgerald v. CongletonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1990
  2. In Re WhiteSupreme Court of Vermont · 2001
  3. Jordan v. Nissan North America, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2004
  4. Armstrong v. Hanover Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Vermont · 1972
  5. Sanders v. St. Paul Mercury InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1987

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Ryerson Inc. v. Federal InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2012
  2. Rutland Herald v. Vermont State Police and Office of the Attorney GeneralSupreme Court of Vermont · 2012
  3. Burton v. Jeremiah Beach Parker Restoration & Construction Management Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2010
  4. Pharmacists Mutual Insurance v. MyerSupreme Court of Vermont · 2010
  5. Bradford Oil Co. v. Stonington Insurance Co. v. State of Vermont Agency of Natural ResourcesSupreme Court of Vermont · 2011

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

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

Powered by the Exa API