Nielsen v. O'REILLY
Utah Supreme Court
1DissentStewart, Justice
The majority opinion holds that an insurance company may sell two uninsured motorist coverages to an insured, charge two premiums for those coverages, and then never have to pay out under one of them. The majority condones what I submit is unconscionable conduct that is tantamount to fraud on the plaintiff and the public.
The plaintiff purchased an automobile insurance policy that provided separate coverages on each of his two automobiles. The policy provided two uninsured motorist coverages for which the insured paid two separate premiums. Each coverage had a policy limit of $250,000. The…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Sellers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1966
- Sturdy v. Allied Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1969
- Bryant v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Virginia · 1965
- Resource Management Co. v. Weston RanchUtah Supreme Court · 1985
- Sutton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.