Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Cacavas v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co., 512 A.2d 423.

15 citing documents.

Great American Insurance v. Christy 53 A.3d 538 N.H. 2012
“In view of the ambiguity, we will read the policy against the insurer in order to honor the reasonable expectations of the policyholder.” Cacavas v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co., 128 N.H. 204, 207 (1986).
State Farm Insurance v. Bruns 942 A.2d 1275 N.H. 2008
Cacavas v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co., 128 N.H. 204, 208 (1986).
Hudson v. Farm Family Mutual Insurance 697 A.2d 501 N.H. 1997
In short, the term “sudden and accidental” is, at the very least, not “so clear as to create no ambiguity which might affect the insured’s reasonable expectations.” Cacavas v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co., 128 N.H. 204, 208, 512 A.2d 423, 425 (1986).
Turner v. St. Paul Property & Liability Insurance 676 A.2d 109 N.H. 1996
*30 We have stated that “[t]he insurance company remains free to limit its liability through clear and unambiguous policy language.” Cacavas v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co., 128 N.H. 204, 208, 512 A.2d 423, 425 (1986) (quotation omitted).
A.B.C. Builders, Inc. v. American Mutual Insurance 661 A.2d 1187 N.H. 1995
ains free to limit its liability through ‘clear and unambiguous policy language.’ Given the strict standard for interpreting insurance contracts established by Trombly [v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 120 N.H. 764, 423 A.2d 980 (1980)], the policy language must be so clear as to create no ambiguity which might affect the insured’s reasonable expectations.” Cacavas v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co., 128 N.H. 204, 208, 512 A.2d 423, 425 (1986).
Concord General Mutual Insurance v. Mitchell 637 A.2d 903 N.H. 1994
Cacavas v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co., 128 N.H. 204, 207, 512 A.2d 423, 425 (1986).
Orleans v. Commercial Union Insurance 578 A.2d 360 N.H. 1990
Brock, C.J. The plaintiff, David Orleans, seeks a determination that our holding in Cacavas v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co., 128 N.H. 204, 512 A.2d 423 (1986) should be applied retroactively.
United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Wilkinson 569 A.2d 749 N.H. 1989
“Tntra-policy stacking’ allows the insured to aggregate the limits of [uninsured motorist] coverage by multiplying the stated limit of liability by the number of vehicles covered under a policy.” Cacavas v. Maine Bonding and Casualty Co., 128 N.H. 204, 205, 512 A.2d 423, 424 (1986).
Curtis v. Guaranty Trust Life Insurance 566 A.2d 176 N.H. 1989
Co. v. Desfosses, 130 N.H. 260, 264, 536 A.2d 205, 208 (1987) (quoting Cacavas v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co., 128 N.H. 204, 208, 512 A.2d 423, 425 (1986)).
Green Mountain Insurance v. Bonney 561 A.2d 1057 N.H. 1989
Cacavas v. Maine Bonding and Casualty Co., 128 N.H. 204, 205-07, 512 A.2d 423, 423-25 (1986).
Gannett v. Merchants Mutual Insurance 552 A.2d 99 N.H. 1988
The court premised its order of rescission on a finding of “mutual mistake,” and allowed for “stacking” based on our decision in Cacavas v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co., 128 N.H. 204, 512 A.2d 423 (1986).
Gelinas v. Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance 551 A.2d 962 N.H. 1988
The plaintiff, relying on Cacaras v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co., 128 N.H. 204, 512 A.2d 423 (1986), claims the right to stack intra-policy *170 limits, for a total of $200,000 minus the amount recovered on the verdict against Mackey.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Desfosses 536 A.2d 205 N.H. 1987
Co., 125 N.H. 38, 480 A.2d 14 (1984); Cacavas v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co., 128 N.H. 204, 512 A.2d 423 (1986).
Amica Mutual Insurance v. Morrison 536 A.2d 199 N.H. 1987
“An insurance company may limit its coverage through 'clear and unambiguous policy language.’” Cacavas v. Mame Bonding & Casualty Co., 128 N.H. 204, 207, 512 A.2d 423, 425 (1986) (quoting Andrews v. Nationwide Mut.
Haley v. Allstate Insurance 529 A.2d 394 N.H. 1987
Cacavas v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co., 128 N.H. 204, 207, 512 A.2d 423, 425 (1986).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by