Legal Opinion · Dissent

Farmers Mutual Insurance v. Tucker

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided December 12, 2002No. 30469Published

1DissentDavis, C.J.

In this proceeding the trial court granted summary judgment against Hubert Tucker. The trial court found no material issue of fact in dispute as to whether a homeowner’s policy issued by Farmers Mutual Insurance Company covered Darrell Taylor, the adult son of its insured, Locie Taylor. The majority has determined that material issues of fact exist in this ease. Therefore, the majority reversed the trial court’s ruling. For the reasons set out below, I dissent.

A. Locie Taylor Never Claimed That His Son Was a Member of His Household

The initial problem I have with the majority opinion is that…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Cotiga Development Co. v. United Fuel Gas Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Mazzilli v. Acc. & Cas. Ins. Co. of WinterthurSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1961
  3. Gibson v. CallaghanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1999
  4. Cal-Farm Insurance v. BoisserancCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. Orteza v. Monongalia County General HospitalWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1984

26 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