Legal Opinion

Armstrong v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided May 25, 2006No. 31715PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EISMANN, Justice.

This case involves a claim under the under-insured motorist coverage of an insurance policy. The plaintiffs claim that the insurance policy covering their Chevrolet pickup also provided coverage for injuries received while operating an off-road motorcycle. The district court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment holding that the insurance policy did not grant coverage. We affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 21, 2003, Jim Armstrong and his nephew were riding motocross motorcycles in the desert. Armstrong lost control of his motorcycle and crashed.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Clark v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. RobertsIdaho Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho v. TalbotIdaho Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Foster v. JohnstoneIdaho Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Purdy v. Farmers Ins. Co. of IdahoIdaho Supreme Court · 2003

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Arreguin v. Farmers Ins. Co. of IdahoIdaho Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Hill v. American Family Mutual InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Swanson v. Beco Const. Co., Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Steel Farms, Inc. v. Croft & Reed, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 2012
  5. State v. McKieIdaho Court of Appeals · 2018

4 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