Legal Opinion

DiGiacomo v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided May 24, 2006No. 05-P-525PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCohen, J.

The plaintiff, Kristen DiGiacomo, filed this action pursuant to G. L. c. 90, § 34M, to enforce her right to the payment of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under a Massachusetts automobile policy issued by the defendant, Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Metropolitan). Metropolitan did not dispute DiGiacomo’s entitlement to PIP benefits, but calculated them differently from DiGiacomo. On the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, a judge of the District Court ruled that DiGiacomo’s calculation was correct, and that she was entitled to receive $627 in PIP…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Pinnick v. ClearyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
  2. Fabre v. WaltonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
  3. Hanlon v. RollinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
  4. Sullivan v. Town of BrooklineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2001
  5. Harvard Crimson, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard CollegeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Okerman v. VA Software Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2007
  2. Libertarian Ass'n v. Secretary of CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2012
  3. Cooney v. Compass Group FoodserviceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2007
  4. Cornetta's CaseMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2007
  5. Erik Patrick Wells v. Charles T. Miller, Prosecuting AttorneyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2016

15 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