Case Title: Mailhiot v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

Citation: 169 Vt. 498, 740 A.2d 360

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-08-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
Mailhiot v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (98-357); 169 Vt. 498; 
740 A.2d 360

[Filed 27-Aug-1999}

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as  formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the  Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 98-357

Joseph Mailhiot & Detra Coltey	                      Supreme Court

	                                              On Appeal from
     v.		                                      Rutland Superior Court

Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance	              May Term, 1999
Company

Alden T. Bryan, J.

       William H. Meub and Michael E. Zeliger of Keyser, Crowley, Carroll,
  George & Meub, P.C., Rutland, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

       Michael J. Gannon and Joshua L. Simonds of Affolter Gannon & Flynn,
  Ltd., Burlington, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       JOHNSON, J.  This case raises the issue of whether, when
  indemnification is sought  from an insurance company, the fact that a
  plaintiff has claimed two distinct theories of recovery  is sufficient to
  invoke the concurrent causation doctrine adopted in State Farm Mutual
  Insurance  Co. v. Roberts, 166 Vt. 452,