National Union Fire Insurance v. Greenberg

Massachusetts Appeals Court

National Union Fire Insurance v. Greenberg

386 N.E.2d 765, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 869

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedMarch 6, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 386 N.E.2d 765 (National Union Fire Insurance v. Greenberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

National Union Fire Insurance v. Greenberg, 386 N.E.2d 765, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 869 (Mass. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Greenberg, the defendant, appeals from a summary judgment entered against him under Mass.R.Civ.P. 56, 365 Mass. 824 (1974). The affidavit in support of the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and the defendant’s counter affidavit raise a genuine and material issue of fact: whether the defendant, a lawyer, had notice, when he received settlement proceeds on behalf of a client whom he represented in a motor vehicle tort action, of the plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company’s subrogation rights to the property damage component of the aggregate settlement proceeds. Whether Greenberg knew of the plaintiffs subrogation claim would have been decisive. General Exch. Ins. Corp. v. Driscoll, 315 Mass. 360 (1944). The plaintiffs affidavit and the defendant’s counter affidavit put that very question in issue, and the defendant was, therefore, entitled to a hearing on the merits. Stetson v. Selectmen of Carlisle, 369 Mass. 755, 763-764 (1976). Perry v. Schlaikjer, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 866 (1977). Kaplan v. Birger, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 878 (1977).

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Greenberg, the defendant, appeals from a summary judgment entered against him under Mass.R.Civ.P. 56, 365 Mass. 824 (1974). The affidavit in support of the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and the defendant’s counter affidavit raise a genuine and material issue of fact: whether the defendant, a lawyer, had notice, when he received settlement proceeds on behalf of a client whom he represented in a motor vehicle tort action, of the plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company’s subrogation rights to the property damage component of the aggregate settlement proceeds. Whether Greenberg knew of the plaintiffs subrogation claim would have been decisive. General Exch. Ins. Corp. v. Driscoll, 315 Mass. 360 (1944). The plaintiffs affidavit and the defendant’s counter affidavit put that very question in issue, and the defendant was, therefore, entitled to a hearing on the merits. Stetson v. Selectmen of Carlisle, 369 Mass. 755, 763-764 (1976). Perry v. Schlaikjer, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 866 (1977). Kaplan v. Birger, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 878 (1977).

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 N.E.2d 765, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-union-fire-insurance-v-greenberg-massappct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack