Legal Opinion
Gilmer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 10, 2003No. E032839PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HOLLENHORST, ACTING P. J.
The parties submitted a joint verified petition to the trial court to determine two insurance coverage issues on stipulated facts. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1138-1139.) The first issue is whether the permissive user of a nonowned vehicle is an insured under the policy. The second issue is whether, under the stipulated facts, there was one accident or two. The trial court decided both these issues in favor of the insurance company. Mr. Gilmer, the injured party, appeals. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1140.) We affirm.
THE STIPULATED FACTS
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. FlyntCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- Roberts v. CraigCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Vargas v. ATHENA ASSURANCE CO.California Court of Appeal · 2001
- Canadian Insurance v. EhrlichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Mercury Insurance Group v. Checkerboard PizzaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
3Cited by2 opinions
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. BoydDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2005
- STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. v. BoydDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2005