State High Court Declines Insurance provider’s ‘Physical Abuse’ Meaning for Abuse and Molestation Exemption

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently reversed a lower court’s judgment in favor of an insurer, discovering a single push in an unprovoked attack by the insured did not prevent protection associating with the term “physical abuse” in the context of the abuse and molestation exemption.

In a March 16 viewpoint, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court all reversed a judgment in favor of the complainant, Dorchester Mutual Insurance Coverage Co., after the guaranteed, 30-year-old William Brengle, started an unprovoked attack on Leonard Miville, 61, by punching him in the head and consistently kicking him, triggering major injuries.

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: