Legal Opinion

Oregon Mutual Insurance v. Fonzo

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided April 9, 1970No. 48-40461-2PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtArmstrong, C. J.

The question presented in plaintiff’s appeal is whether, under the terms of a driver’s exclusion endorsement to a policy of automobile liability insurance, an automobile was “being operated by” an excluded driver who had parked the automobile in a parking area and left it with the motor running. Plaintiff insurance company sought to have this question answered in the affirmative in bringing a declaratory judgment action against defendants Cottrell (the insured) and Fonzo (the injured party). The trial court concluded, on the basis of stipulated facts as contained in the complaint of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Dickson v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Holter v. National Union Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1969
  3. Brown v. Underwriters at Lloyd'sWashington Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Horst Ex Rel. Horst v. HoltzenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1958
  5. Commercial Insurance Co. of Newark, New Jersey v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1967

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Heritage Insurance Co. of America v. PhelanIllinois Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Ross v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Ross v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Parker v. ATLANTA CASUALTY COMPANYCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
  5. Aetna Insurance v. KentCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1975

2 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