David W. Peck

This case concerns an appeal in an insurance coverage dispute after a jury verdict for the plaintiffs seeking recovery under a policy for a claimed loss. The Court of Appeals had previously ruled that the evidence raised a jury question and remitted the matter, leading this court to examine the record and determine that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The court also found the trial judge's instructions inadequate because they failed to clearly assign the plaintiffs the burden of proving both that the loss fell within the policy's coverage and that it was not excluded by the contract terms. As a result, the judgment was reversed and a new trial was ordered.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a trucking company that purchased trucks from the defendant manufacturer and later sued for breach of an implied warranty of fitness for the plaintiff's intended haulage use after discovering the trucks' size limited their operation. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. It reasoned that the written contract expressly excluded all implied warranties other than those specified, a disclaimer permitted by statute and upheld in prior cases, and that the contract's integration clause barred reliance on prior negotiations as parol evidence.

business & regulatory