Legal Opinion
Romanick v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided August 27, 1990No. 24776-0-IPublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtScholfield, J.
The plaintiff, Ron Romanick, assigns error to the trial court's decision granting Aetna's motion for summary judgment on the theory that Romanick was not entitled to underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits from Aetna. We affirm.
Facts
On January 8, 1988, Romanick filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking a determination as to whether he was entitled to UIM benefits under his policy of auto liability coverage with Aetna for injuries he sustained on January 25,1982.
Romanick alleges that at the time of his injury, he was a passenger in a motor vehicle owned by his employer, Northwest…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Feres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- State Farm General Insurance v. EmersonWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- Britton v. Safeco Insurance Co. of AmericaWashington Supreme Court · 1985
- Barfield v. BarfieldSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1987
- Safeco Insurance Co. v. BarcomWashington Supreme Court · 1989
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Allstate Insurance v. DejbodCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1991
- Chance v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 1991
- Jenkins v. City of ElkinsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2012
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. CarltonCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2001
- McIllwain v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.