Legal Opinion

Allstate Insurance v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided March 5, 2001No. 43, Sept. Term, 2000PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WILNER, Judge.

It is common, indeed universal, for automobile insurance policies to contain clauses that require an insured who is involved in an accident to cooperate with the company in the investigation and resolution of any claim made against the insured. In the case at bar, the policy, issued by petitioner State Farm Insurance Company to Latricia Kirby, required Ms. Kirby, among other things, to “cooperate with us and, when asked, assist us in: a. making settlements; b. securing and giving evidence; [and] c. attending and getting witnesses to attend hearings and trials.”

Kirby was involved…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Ashton v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1995
  2. Christ v. Maryland Department of Natural ResourcesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1994
  3. M.F.A. Mutual Insurance v. CheekIllinois Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Campbell v. Allstate Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 1963
  5. Hynding v. Home Accident InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Mayor of Oakland v. Mayor of Mountain Lake ParkCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
  2. Converge Services Group, LLC v. CurranCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
  3. Bowen v. City of AnnapolisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  4. Salamon v. Progressive Classic InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
  5. Prince George's County v. Local Government Insurance TrustCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005

46 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