Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Coakley v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co., 618 A.2d 777.

17 citing documents.

Nucor Corp. v. Employers Insurance 296 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. 2012
State v. HESS CORP. 20 A.3d 212 N.H. 2011
Co., 136 N.H. 402, 413, 618 A.2d 777 (1992) (groundwater is a "unique and irreplaceable government resource").
State v. Hess Corp. 161 N.H. 426 N.H. 2011
Co., 136 N.H. 402, 413 (1992) (groundwater is a “unique and irreplaceable government resource”).
Concord General Mutual Insurance v. Green & Co. Building & Development Corp. 8 A.3d 24 N.H. 2010
Co., 136 N.H. 402, 416 (1992) (“damages” include only those costs which are remedial, not preventative).
Tech-Built 153, Inc. v. Virginia Surety Co. 898 A.2d 1007 N.H. 2006
Co., 136 N.H. 402, 409 (1992) (fundamental inquiry in interpreting contracts centers on determining intent of parties at time of agreement); Lemars Mut.
EnergyNorth Natural Gas, Inc. v. Continental Insurance 781 A.2d 969 N.H. 2001
We also note that “a term in a contract already clearly defined by judicial decision cannot be considered ambiguous.” Coakley v. Maine Bonding & Cas.
Gorman v. National Grange Mutual Insurance 738 A.2d 1276 N.H. 1999
Moreover, “where judicial precedent clearly defines a term at issue, we need look no further than that definition.” Coakley v. Maine Bonding & Gas.
Keshishian v. CMC Radiologists 698 A.2d 1228 N.H. 1997
Coakley v. Maine Bonding & Cas.
Fothergill v. Seabreeze Condominiums at Hampton Ass'n 677 A.2d 696 N.H. 1996
Coakley v. Maine Bonding & Cas.
Weaver v. Royal Insurance Co. of America 674 A.2d 975 N.H. 1996
Co., 136 N.H. 402, 410, 618 A.2d 777, 781-82 (1992); see also Red Panther Chemical Co. v. Ins.
Weeks v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 673 A.2d 772 N.H. 1996
Co., 136 N.H. 402, 410, 618 A.2d 777, 781 (1992), and affirm the superior court’s finding of coverage under the PLE II.
International Surplus Lines Insurance v. Manufacturers & Merchants Mutual Insurance 661 A.2d 1192 N.H. 1995
Coakley v. Maine Bonding & Cas.
A.B.C. Builders, Inc. v. American Mutual Insurance 661 A.2d 1187 N.H. 1995
Coakley v. Maine Bonding & Cas.
Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. Raymond 634 A.2d 1015 N.H. 1993
Co., 136 N.H. 402, 415, 618 A.2d 777, 785 (1992), it would be a sad indictment of our populace to assume that such a person, undertaking a “more than casual reading of the policy,” id.
Green Mountain Insurance v. George 634 A.2d 1011 N.H. 1993
Co., 136 N.H. 402, 410, 618 A.2d 777, 781-82 (1992); see also 3 A. Widiss, Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Insurance § 34.1, at 31 (2d ed. 1992).
Concord Hospital v. New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Ass'n 633 A.2d 1384 N.H. 1993
Co. v. Morrison, 130 N.H. 250, 252, 255, 536 A.2d 199, 200, 202 (1987), and “in the light of what a more than casual reading of the policy would reveal to an ordinarily intelligent in *683 sured,” Aetna Insurance Co. v. State Motors, 109 N.H. 120, 125, 244 A.2d 64, 67 (1968); see also Coakley v. Maine Bonding & Cas.
M. Mooney Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 618 A.2d 793 N.H. 1992
As a preliminary matter, we note that the question we address here is different from that addressed in Coakley v. Maine Bonding & Cas.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by