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.
6 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1986–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Worcester Mutual Insurance v. Marnellgreen2 sentences2023The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, noting that because the policy also contained a severability of insurance clause, "the term 'insured' as used in the motor vehicle exclusion refers only to the person claiming coverage under the policy." Id. at 244 . 2013But the severability of insurance clause makes coverage available to [the parents] nonetheless.” Id. at 244 . | 2 | 5 |
Desrosiers v. Royal Insurance Co. of Americagreen2 sentences1997Co. of America, 393 Mass. 37, 40 (1984). 1986Co., 393 Mass. 37, 40 (1984), we .recognized the “considerable force” of an interpretation of a severability of insurance clause much like the one advanced by Alioto in the present case. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.