Section 113. Upon the recovery of a final judgment against any person by any person, including executors or administrators, for any loss or damage specified in the preceding section, if the judgment debtor was at the accrual of the cause of action insured against liability therefor, the judgment creditor shall be entitled to have the insurance money applied to the satisfaction of the judgment as provided in the ninth clause of section three of chapter two hundred and fourteen.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1930–2025 · leading case: Davis v. Allstate Ins., 747 N.E.2d 141 (Mass. 2001).
Davis v. Allstate Ins., 747 N.E.2d 141 (Mass. 2001). · cites it 2ד” G. L. c. 175, § 113. Allstate’s decision whether to appeal the judgment was governed by the established rule that an insurer’s duty to defend generally encompasses an obligation to appeal from an adverse judgment against its insured, but only if reasonable grounds exist to…”
Chicago Ins. v. Lappin, 792 N.E.2d 1018 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2דSee G. L. c. 175, § 113. That a third-party judgment holder may thereby have a right of recovery against an insurer, however, does not itself justify an award of attorney’s fees incurred in obtaining such policy proceeds as may be available.”
Kanamaru v. Holyoke Mut. Ins., 892 N.E.2d 759 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). “In doing so, the judge concluded that a plain reading of the contractual language indicated that the plaintiff fit into neither of the two possible classifications under the policy that would have permitted uninsured motorist benefits, and rejected Kanamaru’s argument that he…”
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Stearns, 358 A.2d 402 (N.H. 1976). · cites it 2דAt that time the limits in Massachusetts were $5,000 and $10,000 so that the Boucher insurance of $20,000 was in excess of the Massachusetts limits and satisfied the New Hampshire limits. The Massachusetts statutes contain no definition of an uninsured motorist and no indication…”
John Beaudette, Inc. v. Sentry Ins. a Mut. Co., 94 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D. Mass. 1999). “Mass. Gen. L. ch. 175, § 113. Section 3(9) of chapter 214 gives the SJC and Massachusetts superior courts jurisdiction over an action “to reach and apply the obligation of an insurance company to a judgment debt- or” under a liability insurance policy “in satisfaction of a…”
Imperiali v. Pica, 156 N.E.2d 44 (Mass. 1959). “See G. L. c. 175, § 113; c. 214, § 3 (10). The judge made findings of material facts and ordered the bill dismissed.”
Higgenbottom v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 425 N.E.2d 370 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). “266 (1974) (bill to reach and apply as provided for in G. L. c. 175, § 113, and G. L. c. 214, § 3[9]); Motor Club of America Ins.”
Hobbs v. Cunningham, 174 N.E. 181 (Mass. 1930). “This is a bill in equity brought under G. L. c. 175, § 113, as amended by St. 1923, c.”
Kana v. Fishman, 176 N.E. 922 (Mass. 1931). “The plaintiff brought her bill in equity under G. L. c. 175, § 113, as amended by St. 1923, c.”
Caccavo v. Kearney, 190 N.E. 817 (Mass. 1934). “covered thereby, no violation of the terms of the policy and no act or default of the insured, either prior or subsequent to the issue of the policy, shall operate to defeat or avoid the policy so as to bar recovery within the limit provided in the policy by a judgment creditor”…”
Mercadante v. Worcester Ins., 816 N.E.2d 145 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). “She also asserts that application of the principles articulated in Smart to her situation is inconsistent with the legislative intent of G. L. c. 175, § 113, that “each named insured [be] responsible for the extent of his or her underinsured motorist coverage.”
Saunders v. Austin W. Fishing Corp., 224 N.E.2d 215 (Mass. 1967). “G. L. c. 175, § 113; c. 214, § 3 (10). Resolute’s liability was conclusively established by the judgments in the law actions.”
Kanamaru v. Holyoke Mut. Ins., 892 N.E.2d 759 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). “In doing so, the judge concluded that a plain reading of the contractual language indicated that the plaintiff fit into neither of the two possible classifications under the policy that would have permitted uninsured motorist benefits, and rejected Kanamaru’s argument that he…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.