Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1971–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Murray v. Continental Insurancegreen2 sentences2010Co., 313 Mass. 557, 563 (1943) (‘The general rule . . . [is] that a plaintiff seeking to recover for breach of a duty or obligation created by a general clause of a contract, which also contains an exception descriptively limiting such duty or obligation must allege and prove that his cause of action is within the contract and outside the exception; but that where the exception is in another separate and distinct clause of the . . . contract defining . . . the duty or obligation, then the burden is upon the party relying on such exception” (brackets in original)); Hanover Ins. 1997Co., 313 Mass. 557, 563 (1943), expresses the rule as to exclusions: “The general rule governing . . . [is] that a plaintiff seeking to recover for breach of a duty or obligation created by a general clause of a contract, which also contains an exception descriptively limiting such duty or obligation, must allege and prove that his cause of action is within the contract and outside the exception; but that where the exception is in another separate and distinct clause of the . . . contract defining . . . the duty or obligation, then the burden is upon the party relying on such exception.” In th | 3 | 5 |
McGinnis v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.green1 sentence2010Co. v. Talhouni, 413 Mass. 781, 785 (1992), citing McGinnis v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 398 Mass. 37, 38 (1986) (“The insurer must show the applicability of the clause excluding coverage for injury or damage intended or expected by the insured”). | 1 | 1 |
Hanover Insurance v. Talhounigreen1 sentence2010Co. v. Talhouni, 413 Mass. 781, 785 (1992), citing McGinnis v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 398 Mass. 37, 38 (1986) (“The insurer must show the applicability of the clause excluding coverage for injury or damage intended or expected by the insured”). | 1 | 1 |
Highlands Insurance v. Aerovox Inc.green1 sentence2004“The general rule governing . . . [is] that a plaintiff seeking to recover for breach of a duty or obligation created by a general clause of a contract, which also contains an exception descriptively limiting such duty or obligation must allege and prove that his cause of action is within the contract and outside the exception; but that where the exception is in another separate and distinct clause of the . . . contract defining . . . the duty or obligation, then the burden is upon the party relying on such exception.” Highland Insurance Co. v. Aerovox, 424 Mass. 226, 230 (1997), quoting Murra | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||