Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 12/2/1986

Harriman v. Maddocks

Citations

  • 518 A.2d 1027
  • 1986 Me. LEXIS 934

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that “the routine business of claims investigation by an insurance company is to prepare for possible litigation”
  • holding that materials prepared by a claims adjuster in anticipation of litigation were protected against disclosure
  • deciding that an insurance adjuster's case file and investigation is conducted in preparation of litigation, but is subject to discovery based on a Rule 26(b)(3) substantial need showing
  • holding that documents prepared by an insurance adjuster were protected by the work-product doctrine
  • implicitly reasoning that there are (at least) two ways parol evidence would be admissible: by showing (1) fraud in the inducement of the contract, and (2) that the contract is actually not integrated
  • quotingAshmeadv. Harris, 336 N.W.2d 197,200 (Iowa 1983)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McKusick, Nichols, Roberts, Wathen, Glassman, Scolnik, Clifford

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

27 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Harriman v. Maddocks

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.