Legal Opinion · Dissent

Anderson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided April 6, 1982No. 1 CA-CIV 5340Published

1DissentGrant, Judge

I respectfully dissent. The court’s opinion today in no manner adequately addresses the critical question posed by this case: Is an indirect collision between a hit-and-run automobile and an insured’s vehicle sufficient to satisfy the “physical contact” requirement contained in the uninsured motorist clause of the insured’s automobile liability policy? Citing Balestrieri v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Insurance Co., 112 Ariz. 160, 540 P.2d 126 (1975), the majority quickly concludes that there has been no such prerequisite physical contact when a hit-and-run vehicle collides with an…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Surace v. DannaNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
  2. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. EisenbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1966
  3. Inter-Insurance Exchange of Automobile Club v. LopezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  4. Balestrieri v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Latham v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1972

5 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