Title: In re Estate of Bedard

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

ENTRY_ORDER.93-212; 161 Vt. 587; 657 A.2d 167

[Filed 30-Nov-1993]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 93-212

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 1993


 In re Estate of J. Pierre Bedard  }          APPEALED FROM:
                                   }
                                   }
                                   }          Windsor Superior Court
                                   }
                                   }
                                   }
                                   }          DOCKET NO. S0277-92WrCa


              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

      Appellee, who was injured in an accident allegedly caused by the
 negligence of the decedent insured, filed a petition in probate court to
 open administration of an intestate estate for the insured after the probate
 court in the insured's resident state declined to do so based on its con-
 clusion that he did not own real or personal property there.  Appellant
 insurer intervened to challenge the probate court's jurisdiction to
 administer an estate for a nonresident who owned no property in Vermont
 other than the right to exoneration under its liability insurance policy.
 Appellant appeals from the superior court's conclusion that the probate
 court had jurisdiction to administer the estate.

      At issue is whether the right of exoneration under a liability
 insurance policy owned by a nonresident decedent who allegedly incurred
 liability under the policy in Vermont is a sufficient asset to permit the
 administration of the decedent's estate here.  We conclude that it is, and
 affirm the superior court's decision.  Although this Court has not addressed
 this issue, the generally accepted rule is that the right of exoneration
 under an insurance policy constitutes sufficient assets, property, or estate
 of a nonresident decedent to justify the administration of the decedent's
 estate in the state where the alleged liability was incurred, as long as the
 carrier is authorized to do business in that state.  See Campbell v. Davis,