Legal Opinion

Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 20, 2001No. B136688PublishedCited by 156 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CROSKEY, J.

In this class action, the representative plaintiffs 1 allege that the defendant insurers 2 conspired together to require their customers, who sought liability coverage on multiple vehicles, to either purchase uninsured motorist coverage for each vehicle or waive it as to all vehicles. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant insurers claimed that this result was compelled by applicable law. The defendant insurers repeatedly demurred to the plaintiffs’ complaint. Finally, the trial court concluded that the third amended complaint failed sufficiently to allege a conspiracy by or…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Group Life & Health Insurance v. Royal Drug Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. Federal Trade Commission v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by156 opinions

  1. Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
  2. Durell v. Sharp HealthcareCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  3. Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  4. Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
  5. Bardin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2006

151 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