Anderson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Court of Appeals of Arizona
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
- Surace v. DannaNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. EisenbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1966
- Inter-Insurance Exchange of Automobile Club v. LopezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Balestrieri v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1975
- Latham v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1972
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.