Search for: "Gamache "
Results 41 - 46
of 46
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Mar 2009, 3:34 am
The contractor’s insurer argued that Gamache also sought to prevent the insurer from being rewarded for its wrongful refusal to defend, but the Court rejected this as a rationale for Gamache, the purpose of which was “not to punish wrongdoers or to reward those who acted responsibly. [read post]
15 Mar 2009, 4:54 am
Gamache, 426 Mass. 93, 98 (1997). [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 5:32 am
In Gamache v. [read post]
13 Jan 2009, 4:21 am
Gamache, 426 Mass 93 (1997), where the Court explained the law as follows: [i]t is only the intended injuries flowing from an intentional act that are excluded; just as it is the injury and not the legal liability of the insured which must have been caused by accident; and a homeowners policy covers bodily injury from unintended results of an intentional act, but not for an injury which was intended. [read post]
2 Nov 2008, 11:42 pm
PAUL GEORGE GAMACHE, Defendant, Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. [read post]
12 Mar 2008, 1:15 am
The court agreed, extending the Gamache exception to include insureds who successfully defend against insurers in litigation over the duty to defend and, therefore, permitting the insured to recover its attorneys fees.A full copy of the opinion is available here. [read post]
