Legal Opinion

Hamm v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 22, 2004No. 73614-6PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairhurst, J.

A no-fault motorist was injured in a car accident with an «reinsured motorist (tortfeasor). She recovered both personal injury protection (PIP) benefits and uninsured motorist (UIM)1 benefits from the same insurance carrier. After arbitration of the UIM claim was complete, the insurance carrier took an offset, in an amount equal to the PIP benefits it previously paid, against the amount it owed in its capacity as UIM carrier. We extend our earlier decisions in Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wn.2d 398, 957 P.2d 632, 966 P.2d 305 (1998), and Winters v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 144…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Mahler v. SzucsWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Mahler v. SzucsWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Dayton v. Farmers Insurance GroupWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Britton v. Safeco Insurance Co. of AmericaWashington Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Hamilton v. Farmers Insurance Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1987

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Matsyuk v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Hamm v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Sherry v. Financial Indem. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Sherry v. Financial Indemnity Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Maytown Sand & Gravel, LLC v. Thurston CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2018

29 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