Harsha v. Fidelity General Insurance Company
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
HAIRE, Judge.
The question before us is whether •our uninsured motorist statute 1 requires that uninsured motorist coverage be made available to compensate an injured person for the difference between the automotive tort-feasor’s valid and collectible automobile liability insurance coverage and the amount of damages actually incurred by the injured person. We have little difficulty in concluding that the question must be answered in the negative.
Taking as true the facts alleged by the plaintiff-appellant, her minor son (and ward) was seriously injured in an automobile collision caused by the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Geyer v. Reserve Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1968
- Detrick v. Aetna Casualty and Surety CompanySupreme Court of Iowa · 1968
- Reserve Insurance Company v. StaatsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1969
- New York Underwriters Insurance v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court · 1969
- Smiley v. Estate of ToneyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1968
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Porter v. Empire Fire and Marine Insurance CompanyArizona Supreme Court · 1970
- Balestrieri v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1975
- Wilbourn v. Allstate Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Alabama · 1974
- Allstate Insurance Company v. PesqueriaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1973
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. EdenArizona Supreme Court · 1983
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.