Legal Opinion · Dissent

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Stein

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided October 15, 1996No. 95CA0432Published

1Dissent

Judge CASEBOLT

dissenting.

In my view the term “pedestrian” should be given the meaning that the parties both contracted for and defined in the insurance policy. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

The rights and duties of the parties to an automobile insurance policy are defined by the terms and conditions of the insurance contract. As in other areas of contract law, the language of an insurance policy is determinative of the intent of the parties. Lopez v. Dairyland Insurance Co., 890 P.2d 192 (Colo.App.1994). See Radiology Professional Corp. v. Trinidad Area Health Ass’n, 195 Colo. 253, 577…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Pepcol Manufacturing Co. v. Denver Union Corp.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1984
  2. Radiology Professional Corp. v. Trinidad Area Health Ass'nSupreme Court of Colorado · 1978
  3. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. McMichaelSupreme Court of Colorado · 1995
  4. Terranova v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1990
  5. Rau v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1978

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API