Legal Opinion · Dissent

Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Dotson

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided March 18, 1996No. 95SC122Published

1DissentChief Justice Vollack

The majority, relying on our opinion in Meyer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 689 P.2d 585 (Colo.1984), holds that it is contrary to public policy to apply a named insured exclusion clause in an insurance policy to preclude a named insured from recovering under the liability provisions of the policy from another named insured on the same policy. Because Meyer did not address the fact scenario presently before us, and thus does not apply to the instant ease, I dissent. I would hold that the named insured exclusion, when applied to exclude co-insureds from collecting against each…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Meyer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1984
  2. Allstate Insurance Co. v. FeghaliSupreme Court of Colorado · 1991
  3. Mayo v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1992
  4. Weisberg v. DET. AUTO. INTER-INS. EX.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1971
  5. Weisberg v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance ExchangeMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971

1 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