DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Courtemanche v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 385 A.2d 105.

13 citing documents.

  • Concord Hospital v. New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Ass'n 694 A.2d 996 N.H. 1997
    Co., 118 N.H. 168, 173, 385 A.2d 105, 108 (1978) (permitting stacking of policies up to total damages); Caballero v. Metropolitan Property & Liab.
  • Gisonni v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 687 A.2d 709 N.H. 1996
    Co., 118 N.H. 168, 385 A.2d 105 (1978); Vigneault v. Travelers Ins.
  • Anderson v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. 594 A.2d 1293 N.H. 1991
    Co., 118 N.H. 168, 173, 385 A.2d 105, 108 (1978) (stacking of uninsured motorist policies is limited by total damages).
  • Rashid v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 787 P.2d 1066 Ariz. 1990
  • United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Wilkinson 569 A.2d 749 N.H. 1989
    Co., 118 N.H. 168, 172-73, 385 A.2d 105, 107-08 (1978) (discussing RSA 268:15-a, I, the precursor to RSA 264:15).
  • Gannett v. Merchants Mutual Insurance 552 A.2d 99 N.H. 1988
    We emphasized the fact that the case involved a claim of intra-policy stacking and relied on that fact to help distinguish it from the situation in Courtemanche v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 118 N.H. 168, 385 A.2d 105 (1978), where we permitted an insured to stack the coverages of as many uninsured motorist policies as were applicable to him, up to his total damages.
  • Hartford Insurance v. White 484 A.2d 1222 N.H. 1984
    White argues that under Courtemanche v. Lumberman’s Mutual Casualty Co., 118 N.H. 168, 385 A.2d 105 (1978) and Vigneault v. Travelers Insurance Co., 118 N.H. 75, 382 A.2d 910 (1978), she is entitled to stack the uninsured motorist coverage under the two policies to determine the total amount of coverage available, and that she then needs to deduct only once the $25,000 recovered from the driver.
  • Descoteaux v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 480 A.2d 14 N.H. 1984
    They argue that the language of the policy definitions which precludes such stacking, by requiring that the *44 determination whether a tortfeasor is underinsured be made by considering each policy separately, is no longer valid and effective in light of our holding in Courtemanche v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 118 N.H. 168, 385 A.2d 105 (1978), in which we permitted stacking.
  • Merchants Mutual Insurance Group v. Orthopedic Professional Ass'n 480 A.2d 840 N.H. 1984
    Co., 118 N.H. 168, 385 A.2d 105 (1978), we held that a clause which reduced recovery under the policy by amounts received under other applicable policies violated the uninsured motorist statute because the statute “evinces a legislative intent to allow a person to protect himself against injury from uninsured motorists to the extent t
  • Grimes v. Concord General Mutual Insurance 422 A.2d 1312 N.H. 1980
    Co., 118 N.H. 168, 385 A.2d 105 (1978), is dispositive of the issue, while the defendant relies on Eckert v. Green Mt.
  • Bertolami v. Merchants Mutual Insurance 414 A.2d 1281 N.H. 1980
    Co., 118 N.H. 168, 385 A.2d 105 (1978); Vigneault v. Travelers Ins.
  • Eckert v. Green Mountain Insurance 394 A.2d 55 N.H. 1978
    It should also be noted that this case differs from our recent opinion of Courtemanche v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., 118 N.H. 168, 385 A.2d 105 (1978).
  • Auclair v. Allstate Insurance 392 A.2d 1197 N.H. 1978
    He claims that “if the Court rules that the Fireman’s Fund is obliged to provide liability coverage in the amount of $20,000/$40,000, that Allstate is also obliged to provide coverage in the amount of $20,000/$40,000, to the extent that the plaintiff’s damages exceed $20,000.” The plaintiff cites Courtemanche v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company, 118 N.H. 168, 385 A.2d 105 (1978), as support for his position.