Legal Opinion
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Arrington
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided May 26, 1998No. 1 CA-CV 97-0448PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EHRLICH, Presiding Judge.
¶ 1 Although the Arringtons were fully compensated from the underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverages of their policies with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for their damages suffered in a vehicle accident, they sought further payments under the UIM coverages of other policies they held with the same insurance company. The trial court ruled that they were not entitled to duplicative recovery. We affirm.
FACTS 1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Larry Arrington, Ms wife Barbara and their daughter Cynthia were involved m an automobile accident caused by…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Associated Indemnity Corp. v. WarnerArizona Supreme Court · 1985
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. WilsonArizona Supreme Court · 1989
- Geyer v. Reserve Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1968
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. BogartArizona Supreme Court · 1986
- Spain v. Valley Forge InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1987
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Kuehn v. StanleyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
- Assyia v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
- Simon v. MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTERCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
- Maleki v. Desert Palms Professional Properties, L.L.C.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
- Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.