Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Concord General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Madore

178 Vt. 281 (Vt. 2005)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Concord General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Madore

9 Citing cases

  1. Sperling v. Allstate Indemnity Co.

    2007 Vt. 126 (Vt. 2007)   Cited 7 times

    " Id. "Nonetheless, we will not deny the insurer the benefit of unambiguous terms inserted into the contract for its benefit." Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Madore, 2005 VT 70, ¶ 9, 178 Vt. 281, 882 A.2d 1152. ¶ 9.

  2. Knelman v. Middlebury Coll.

    898 F. Supp. 2d 697 (D. Vt. 2012)   Cited 44 times
    Holding "[l]anguage in a college handbook or other official statement that is merely aspirational in nature, or that articulates a general statement of a school's 'ideals,' 'goals,' or 'mission,' is not enforceable"

    A term does not become ambiguous simply because it is not defined. See Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Madore, 2005 VT 70, ¶¶ 9–10, 178 Vt. 281, 283, 285, 882 A.2d 1152, 1155 (noting that when confronted with an undefined term in an insurance contract, “we may take judicial notice of its dictionary definition to determine its popular meaning,” and defining policy term “sexual molestation” in accordance with this approach); Hardwick Recycling & Salvage, Inc. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 2004 VT 124, ¶ 26, 177 Vt. 421, 432, 869 A.2d 82, 91 (observing that the term “damages” was undefined in insurance contract, and “[r]ecognizing that the court may take judicial notice of an insurance term's dictionary definition when that term is not defined by the policy”). To the extent Mr. Knelman argues that Middlebury was required to “charge” him and find him “guilty” before he could be dismissed from the hockey team, he cites no provision of the Handbook which requires Middlebury to take disciplinary action against any student for a non-academic conduct offense.

  3. Mayhew v. Alterra Excess & Surplus Ins. Co.

    Case no. 2:11-cv-190 (D. Vt. Jan. 25, 2012)   Cited 1 times
    Finding president of company was not an "insured" while riding his personal motorcycle

    However, the Court must "not deny the insurer the benefit of unambiguous terms inserted into the contract for its benefit." Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Madore, 2005 VT 70, ¶ 9, 882 A.2d 1152, 1155 (citing Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. CNA Ins. Co., 2004 VT 93, ¶ 9, 862 A.2d 251, 256.) At the outset, in looking at the "business purposes sought to be achieved by the parties", the CGL issued to Mayhew Enterprises, Inc. was a business policy intended to protect the corporation, and there is no suggestion the policy was intended to protect an executive officer operating a personal vehicle.

  4. Southwick v. City of Rutland

    2011 Vt. 105 (Vt. 2011)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that mere failure by one party to honor terms of agreement requiring another party to bring legal action to enforce agreement was insufficient basis for awarding attorney's fees to prevailing party

    We review a trial court's ruling on the amount of attorney's fees awarded for abuse of discretion. Elec. Man, Inc. v. Charos, 2006 VT 16, ¶ 6, 179 Vt. 351, 895 A.2d 193; Human Rights Comm'n v. LaBrie, Inc., 164 Vt. 237, 251, 668 A.2d 659, 669 (1995). A decision of a trial court granting attorney's fees as a matter of law is reviewed de novo on appeal. Will v. Mill Condo. Owners' Ass'n, 2006 VT 36, ¶ 5, 179 Vt. 500, 898 A.2d 1264 (citing Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Madore, 2005 VT 70, ¶ 8, 178 Vt. 281, 882 A.2d 1152). Here, the issue is whether the City is entitled to its attorney's fees under the terms of the Agreement and, if so, the extent of those fees.

  5. Towns v. Northern Security Insurance Co.

    184 Vt. 322 (Vt. 2008)   Cited 35 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding it appropriate for Court to address issue not decided by trial court when issue was raised below and was "fully briefed on appeal," and doing so served the "interest of judicial economy"

    Similarly, the interpretation of the terms of an insurance contract presents a question of law, not fact, and our review is therefore "plenary, and nondeferential." Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Madore, 2005 VT 70, ¶ 9, 178 Vt. 281, 882 A.2d 1152. ¶ 9.

  6. Debartolo v. Underwriters at Lloyd's

    181 Vt. 609 (Vt. 2007)   Cited 15 times
    Recognizing that a surplus lines insurer “can issue coverage only if it is not reasonably available from other sources”

    But this overstates the importance of the premises description and ignores the rest of the policy, with which it must be construed as part of an integrated whole. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Madore, 2005 VT 70, ¶ 12, 178 Vt. 281, 882 A.2d 1152. Here, the policy provided property coverage "for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations."

  7. McAlister v. Vermont Property Casualty

    2006 Vt. 85 (Vt. 2006)   Cited 13 times
    Explaining that policy provisions should be construed *126 as whole and policy viewed “in its entirety”

    As this appeal presents only questions of law, our review is nondeferential and plenary. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Madore, 2005 VT 70, ¶ 9, 178 Vt. 281, 882 A.2d 1152. I.

  8. Blake v. Nationwide Ins. Co.

    180 Vt. 14 (Vt. 2006)   Cited 6 times
    Concluding that party was "not prejudiced by allowing plaintiff to appeal from the final judgment ... since it was given sufficient notice of the issues on appeal and had the opportunity to fully brief them"

    We agree that the grounds for the discovery order no longer existed. See Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Madore, 2005 VT 70, ¶ 15, 178 Vt. 281, 882 A.2d 1152 (concluding defendants' claim that court erred in denying them discovery was moot where request related to issue that was immaterial to policy exclusion). Second, plaintiff claims the court erred in dismissing his count that Nationwide acted in bad faith in its actions with respect to plaintiff and Riddle. Since we have found that Nationwide did not breach its duty to defend Riddle and properly denied coverage under the employment exclusion in the policy, there is no basis for a bad faith claim.

  9. Will v. Mill Condominium Owners' Assoc

    2006 Vt. 36 (Vt. 2006)   Cited 10 times
    Finding that plaintiff could simultaneously pursue claims for rescission and money damages because plaintiff sought to recover for the "distinct harms" of loss of ownership of a condominium and loss of her use of the condominium for an extended period of time

    Finally, the trial court denied Will's claim for costs because she had not provided an adequate accounting. Will challenges these rulings in her appeal. The trial court denied Will's damages claim and attorneys' fees as a matter of law; therefore, our review is de novo. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Madore, 2005 VT 70, ¶ 8, 178 Vt. 281, 882 A.2d 1152. We renew the denial of costs for abuse of discretion. Jordan v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 2004 VT 27, ¶ 16, 176 Vt. 465, 853 A.2d 40.