Legal Opinion

Ammerman Ex Rel. Ammerman v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

Utah Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 1967No. 10574PublishedCited by 53 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CROCKETT, Chief Justice:

This case is a sequel to Soliz v. Am-merman, 1 in which the plaintiff recovered a judgment for $15,282 for injuries and damages resulting from an automobile collision at the intersection of Second West and 200 North Streets in Salt Lake City in June of 1962. Ammerman’s insurer (defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange) had engaged in unsuccessful negotiations to settle that action and had defended Ammer-man at the trial, and after the adverse jury verdict and judgment had paid the plaintiff Soliz the amount of its policy limit of $10,000.

This suit was instigated by Soliz…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Southern Fire & Casualty Co. v. NorrisCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1952
  2. Farmers Insurance Exchange v. HendersonArizona Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Murray v. MossmanWashington Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Francis v. NewtonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1947
  5. Dillingham v. Tri-State Insurance Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1964

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

3Cited by53 opinions

  1. Toy v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Beck v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeUtah Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Berube v. Fashion Centre, Ltd.Utah Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Amica Mutual Insurance Co. v. SchettlerCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1989
  5. Lyon v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity CompanyUtah Supreme Court · 1971

48 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