Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Turner Insurance Agency, Inc.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided April 11, 1975No. 11538Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcFADDEN, Justice

I must respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion holding that Turner Insurance is not liable to GMAC for return of the unearned insurance premiums. In my opinion, liability of Turner Insurance to GMAC should be predicated on the conclusion that Turner converted the funds of GMAC or that a resulting trust was created when GMAC paid funds to Turner Insurance for the purpose of procuring insurance.

I

GMAC paid Turner Insurance the amount of $3,234.00 by two checks for the purchase of a three year physical damage insurance policy. GMAC submitted the checks in response to a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Klam v. KoppelIdaho Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Shepherd v. DouganIdaho Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Mollendorf v. DerryIdaho Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Warm Springs Properties, Inc. v. Andora Villa, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Motherwell v. TaylorIdaho Supreme Court · 1886

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API