Legal Opinion

Hartford Insurance v. Hertz Corp.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided May 28, 1991PublishedCited by 56 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGreaney, J.

We allowed an application for direct appellate review to decide whether The Hertz Corporation (Hertz), a motor vehicle rental company which insures its own vehicles, is required to provide underinsured motorist benefits to a customer who was injured while driving one of its vehicles. A judge of the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Hertz pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 56, 365 Mass. 824 (1974), reasoning that the statute in force at the time, which provided for compulsory underinsured motorist coverage, G. L. c. 175, § 113L (1984 ed.), applied exclusively to motor vehicle…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Boston Edison Co. v. Boston Redevelopment AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  2. Royal Indemnity Co. v. BlakelyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  3. Beeler v. DowneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  4. Cardin v. Royal Insurance Co. of AmericaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
  5. Allstate Insurance v. ShawNew York Court of Appeals · 1980

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

3Cited by56 opinions

  1. Fontaine v. Ebtec Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1993
  2. Bank v. Thermo Elemental Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
  3. Boston Herald, Inc. v. SharpeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
  4. Colwell v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 2003
  5. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Continental Casualty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992

51 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