§Why CasetextPricing

Hudson Savings Bank v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment

20 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 215,930 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  2. A.W. Chesterton Co. v. Mass. Insurers Insolvency Fund

    445 Mass. 502 (Mass. 2005)   Cited 74 times
    Adopting the exposure theory trigger to asbestos-related claims

  3. Compagnie De Reassurance D'Ile de France v. New England Reinsurance Corp.

    57 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 1995)   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he [legal] distinction between . . . three [corporate] entities is not . . . decisive for [Section 1962(c)] purposes"

  4. Federal Insurance v. HPSC, Inc.

    480 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2007)   Cited 52 times
    Holding that the plaintiff waived its right to appeal the denial of its Rule 52(c) motion by presenting evidence after the close of the defendant's case on its counterclaim

  5. City Fuel Corp. v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford

    446 Mass. 638 (Mass. 2006)   Cited 45 times
    Noting "the strict construction we normally afford exclusionary clauses, particularly where there is any ambiguity"

  6. Kobico, Inc. v. Pipe

    44 Mass. App. Ct. 103 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 23 times
    Collecting Massachusetts cases in which courts have found a condition precedent, even though the policy did not use the term "condition precedent"

  7. Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. v. Wausau Paper Mills

    818 F.2d 591 (7th Cir. 1987)   Cited 36 times
    Concluding that rate at which corrosion occurred "not relevant to whether it falls under the corrosion exclusion"

  8. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Fraidowitz

    443 F.3d 128 (1st Cir. 2006)   Cited 4 times
    Granting motion for summary judgment where "no reasonable jury could possibly reach any other conclusion on this record but that [the defendant] was responsible for a misrepresentation on his application . . . and that this misrepresentation manifestly subjected [the plaintiff] to an increased risk"

  9. General Star Indemnity Company v. Duffy

    191 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 1999)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that insurer was entitled, as a matter of law, to rely on insured's representation that property was sprinklered, and insurer's right of rescission was not waived by presence in its files of inspection report showing that property was not sprinklered

  10. Technology Square, LLC v. United National Insurance Co.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-10047-GAO (D. Mass. Feb. 15, 2007)   Cited 1 times
    Applying Massachusetts law

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,469 times   650 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Section 175:186 - Misrepresentations by insured; effect

    Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175 § 186   Cited 65 times

    (a) No oral or written misrepresentation or warranty made in the negotiation of a policy of insurance by the insured or in his behalf shall be deemed material or defeat or avoid the policy or prevent its attaching unless such misrepresentation or warranty is made with actual intent to deceive, or unless the matter misrepresented or made a warranty increased the risk of loss. (b) No oral or written misrepresentation or warranty as to the physical condition or health risks to the physical condition