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 Storms v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 388 A.2d 578.

14 citing documents.

  • Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance v. Peerless Insurance 880 A.2d 415 N.H. 2005
    Storms v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar.
  • City of Concord v. Tompkins 471 A.2d 1152 N.H. 1984
    Co., 118 N.H. 427, 432, 388 A.2d 578, 581 (1978); Town of Rye v. McMahon, 117 N.H. 857, 861, 379 A.2d 807, 810 (1977); cf. Margolis v. Insurance Company, 100 N.H. 303, 308, 125 A.2d 768, 772 (1956) (reliance on non-action is unreasonable when there is no duty to act or disclose by the non-actor).
  • Croteau v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance 461 A.2d 111 N.H. 1983
    Co. v. Seppala & Aho Const. Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 374, 376, 430 A.2d 157, 159 (1981) (quoting Storms v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar.
  • Guri v. Guri 448 A.2d 370 N.H. 1982
    Appeal of Cloutier Lumber Co., 121 N.H. 420, 422, 431 A.2d 112, 113 (1981); Storms v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar.
  • Continental Insurance v. Seppala & Aho Construction Co. 430 A.2d 157 N.H. 1981
    “If a policy is so constructed that a reasonable man in the position of the insured would not attempt to read it, the insured’s reasonable expectations will not be delimited by the policy language, regardless of the clarity of one particular phrase among the Augean stable of print.” Storms v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar.
  • Trombly v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield 423 A.2d 980 N.H. 1980
    Shea v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 120 N.H. 106, 411 A.2d 1118 (1980); Storms v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar.
  • Grimes v. Concord General Mutual Insurance 422 A.2d 1312 N.H. 1980
    Co., 118 N.H. 427, 430, 388 A.2d 578, 580 (1978), or unless the parties’ prior dealings would lead the insured to form a reasonable belief that the policy provided him the claimed coverage.
  • American Policyholders' Insurance v. Smith 412 A.2d 749 N.H. 1980
    generally Storms v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 118 N.H. 427, 388 A.2d 578 (1978).
  • Shea v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 411 A.2d 1118 N.H. 1980
    generally Storms v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar.
  • Olszak v. Peerless Insurance 406 A.2d 711 N.H. 1979
    We reaffirm the vitality of the “reasonable expectations rule.” E.g., New Hampshire Insurance Co. v. Schofield, 119 N.H. 692, 406 A.2d 715 (1979); Hanover Insurance Co. v. Grondin, 119 N.H. 394, 402 A.2d 174 (1979); Storms v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 118 N.H. 427, 430, 388 A.2d 578, 579-80 (1978); Magulas v. Travelers Insurance Co., 114 N.H. 704, 706, 327 A.2d 608, 609 (1974).
  • Hanover Insurance v. Grondin 402 A.2d 174 N.H. 1979
    Co., 118 N.H. 427, 430, 388 A.2d 578, 579-80 (1978), Atwood v. Hartford Accident & Indem.
  • Commercial Union Assurance Companies v. Gollan 394 A.2d 839 N.H. 1978
    Storms v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 118 N.H. 427, 429, 430, 388 A.2d 578, 580 (1978).
  • Eckert v. Green Mountain Insurance 394 A.2d 55 N.H. 1978
    Co., 118 N.H. 427, 388 A.2d 578 (1978), for the language was changed from “an automobile,” which is unrelated to any specific vehicle, to “the owned automobile,” which links the coverage to a specific vehicle.
  • Auclair v. Allstate Insurance 392 A.2d 1197 N.H. 1978
    olicies are interpreted from the standpoint of the layman ‘in light of what a more than casual reading of the policy would reveal to an ordinarily intelligent insured.’ ” Brown v. City of Laconia, 118 N.H. 376, 378, 386 A.2d 1276, 1277 (1978); accord, Commercial Union Assurance Companies v. Town of Derry, 118 N.H. 469, 387 A.2d 1171 (1978); Storms v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, 118 N.H. 427, 388 A.2d 578 (1978).