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 Grimes v. Concord General Mutual Insurance, 422 A.2d 1312.

14 citing documents.

  • Orleans v. Commercial Union Insurance 578 A.2d 360 N.H. 1990
    In Grimes v. Concord General Mutual Insurance Co., 120 N.H. 718, 422 A.2d 1312 (1980), this court first considered whether an insured is entitled to stack the uninsured motorist benefits contained within a single policy that insures two cars.
  • Gannett v. Merchants Mutual Insurance 552 A.2d 99 N.H. 1988
    Several years before our decision in Deseoteaux, this court decided Grimes v. Concord General Mutual Insurance Co., 120 N.H. 718, 422 A.2d 1312 (1980), which holding was followed in New Hampshire Insurance Co. v. Bell, 121 N.H. 127, 427 A.2d 27 (1981).
  • Gelinas v. Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance 551 A.2d 962 N.H. 1988
  • State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Desfosses 536 A.2d 205 N.H. 1987
    More recently, however, in Cacavas, the court *263 observed that the standard for interpreting policy language changed subsequent to our decisions in Beliveau and Grimes v. Concord General Mutual Insurance Co., 120 N.H. 718, 422 A.2d 1312 (1980).
  • Cacavas v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co. 512 A.2d 423 N.H. 1986
    The superior court granted the defendant’s motion, ruling that Grimes v. Concord General Mutual Insurance Co., 120 N.H. 718, 422 A.2d 1312 (1980), governed the action.
  • V & V Corp. v. American Policyholders' Insurance 500 A.2d 695 N.H. 1985
    Co., 120 N.H. 718, 722, 422 A.2d 1312, 1315 (1980); see also Hanover Ins.
  • Descoteaux v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 480 A.2d 14 N.H. 1984
    Co., 120 N.H. 718, 422 A.2d 1312 (1980), the policy language is “sufficiently clear” that underinsured coverage is determined by looking to each policy separately.
  • Merchants Mutual Insurance Group v. Orthopedic Professional Ass'n 480 A.2d 840 N.H. 1984
  • Andrews v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance 467 A.2d 254 N.H. 1983
    Co., 120 N.H. 718, 422 A.2d 1312 (1980); Shea v. United Services Auto Ass’n, 120 N.H. 106, 411 A.2d 1118 (1980).
  • Croteau v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance 461 A.2d 111 N.H. 1983
  • Town of Epping v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 444 A.2d 496 N.H. 1982
    Co., 120 N.H. 718, 722, 422 A.2d 1312, 1315 (1980); Robbins Auto Parts, Inc. v. Granite State Ins.
  • Flood v. Caron 441 A.2d 733 N.H. 1982
    Co., 120 N.H. 718, 723-24, 422 A.2d 1312, 1315-16 (1980), in which we held that stacking was not permitted, the relevant language of the policies in the two cases was identical, and we concluded that the arbitrators in Bell would not have made the award “had they known what the law was.” N.H. Ins.
  • Robbins Auto Parts, Inc. v. Granite State Insurance 435 A.2d 507 N.H. 1981
    Co., 120 N.H. 718, 722, 422 A.2d 1312, 1315 (1980); Karol v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., 120 N.H. 287, 290, 414 A.2d 939, 941 (1980), or unless the insured’s “reliance on the [insurer’s] agent’s assurances was reasonable” so as to estop the company from denying coverage, Lariviere v. New Hampshire Ins.
  • New Hampshire Insurance v. Bell 427 A.2d 27 N.H. 1981
    Grimes, C.J. The issue in this case is whether a decision by an arbitration panel, which was rendered more than one year before we decided Grimes v. Concord General Mutual Insurance Co., 120 N.H. 718, 422 A.2d 1312 (1980), and which is in direct conflict with *128 our holding in that case, is binding upon the parties to the arbitration proceeding.