Legal Opinion
Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided February 29, 1988No. 2 CA-CV 88-0003PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FERNANDEZ, Judge.
The single issue we are asked to decide in this appeal is whether appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is required to pay appellant Betty Johnson $3,000 for the loss in value to her insured automobile in addition to the $5,064.48 it paid to have the vehicle repaired after it was damaged in a collision. We agree with the trial court that State Farm does not owe the money.
After a trial to the court on Johnson’s breach of contract action, the court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law. The pertinent findings of fact are that Johnson was in an…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bickel v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Virginia · 1965
- American Standard County Mut. Ins. Co. v. BarbeeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1953
- Pierce v. American Fidelity Fire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Rossier v. Union Automobile InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1930
- Karp v. Fidelity-Phenix Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. SchaeferTexas Supreme Court · 2003
- Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 2002
- Schulmeyer v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2003
- Carlton v. Trinity Universal Insurance Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2000
- Hyden v. Farmers Inurance ExchangeColorado Court of Appeals · 2000
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.