Legal Opinion

Bonasia v. Hanover Insurance

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

Decided June 21, 1991PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtFlatley, J.

Plaintiff Francis Bonasia (“Bonasia”) brought this action in one count pursuant to G.Lc. 93A to recover statutory damages for the refusal of the defendant, Hanover Insurance Company (“Hanover”), to pay his claim for the theft of his automobile which was insured by Hanover.

Hanover filed a Dist/Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 56 motion for summary judgment on the grounds that it had noduty to pay Bonasia under his policy ofinsurance because he voided his coverage by refusing to submit to an examination under oath and otherwise failing to cooperate in the investigation of his claim.

The court allowed…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Attorney General v. BaileyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  2. Bushkin Associates, Inc. v. Raytheon Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
  3. DiMarzo v. American Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
  4. Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance v. AbernathyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
  5. Jet Line Services, Inc. v. American Employers InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Alexander v. ComptonMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API