Legal Opinion

Marzano v. Elacqua

Massachusetts Superior Court

Decided November 10, 1997No. 963195Published

1Opinion of the CourtBotsford, J.

The plaintiff Jayne Marzano claims in this action that she is entitled to uninsured and underinsured benefits under an automobile insurance policy issued to Marzano by the defendant Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Metropolitan). Metropolitan has filed a counterclaim in which it seeks a declaration that the policy does not afford uninsured or underinsured insurance coverage to Marzano. Presently before the court is Metropolitan’s motion for summary judgment on its claim of no uninsurance coverage. For the reasons discussed below, Metropolitan’s motion is allowed.

Background

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Cody v. Connecticut General Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  2. Cardin v. Royal Insurance Co. of AmericaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
  3. Royal-Globe Insurance v. CravenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
  4. Surrey v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
  5. Santos v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990

4 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