Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hettwer v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided September 25, 1990No. 17831Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBistline, Justice

I

Justice Johnson’s opinion gains my concurrence insofar as it affirms Judge Magnuson’s dismissal of the Hettwers’ third party action against Farmers Insurance. Nevertheless, on a careful perusal of the authority relied on by the Hettwers, including our own White v. Uniguard Mut. Ins. Co., 112 Idaho 94, 730 P.2d 1014 (1986), and our own Chancler v. American Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 109 Idaho 841, 712 P.2d 542 (1985), I am persuaded that one day this Court, differently constituted one may be certain, will see merit in the Hettwers’ contention that their action against Farmers is not so…

2Cases cited45 opinions

  1. Rawlings v. ApodacaArizona Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Minich v. Gem State Developers, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1979
  3. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. PartridgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Noble v. National American Life InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1981

40 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