Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Graham-Gonzalez
Alaska Supreme Court
1DissentFabe, Justice
I disagree with the court’s decision because I believe that AS 21.89.020(c) requires insurers to inform customers about both the availability and the relatively moderate pricing of UIM coverage. Informing policyholders that additional UIM coverage is available for only a small additional charge will prompt*288some consumers who might not otherwise ask to seek specific information about the cost of UIM insurance, thus helping them to make informed decisions about their desired level of coverage. This approach does not require insurance companies to list specific prices for UIM coverage and…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wannamaker Ex Rel. Estate of WannamakerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1987
- Linko v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North AmericaOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Hastings v. United Pacific Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Cloninger v. National General InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1985
- Kuchenmeister v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.