Legal Opinion

State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. v. Raymer

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided March 26, 1999No. S-8296, S-8315PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

EASTAUGH, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

In Alaska, an innocent co-insured may recover insurance proceeds for his or her interest in property even if the other co-insured is responsible for its destruction. But Alaska law also requires an insured to have an “insurable interest” in the property to recover insurance proceeds. The superior court granted summary judgment to Tammy Ray-mer on her contract claim against State Farm, concluding that she was an innocent co-insured who had an insurable interest in a truck her husband, Michael Raymer, may have burned. It awarded Tammy one-half the value…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Wanberg v. WanbergAlaska Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Richards v. Hanover InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1983
  3. Krupp v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  4. Wright v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Nielson v. BentonAlaska Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Hoffman Construction Co. of Alaska v. U.S. Fabrication & Erection, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Rausch v. DevineAlaska Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Winschel v. BrownAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Thoeni v. Consumer Electronic ServicesAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Sosa v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2000

8 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