Legal Opinion
Protective Fire and Casualty Company v. Woten
Nebraska Supreme Court
Decided December 11, 1970No. 37664PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSpencer, J.
This is a declaratory judgment action seeking to *213sustain an excess-escape clause as applied; to an uninsured motorist provision in a policy issued by plaintiff. The district court held the provision to be contrary to the requirements of our statute, and of no effect. We affirm.
Deceased was a guest passenger in a car owned and operated by one Turner, which was involved in a collision with a car owned by an uninsured motorist. Turner had uninsured motorist’s coverage with the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for the statutory minimum. His insurer paid defendants $10,000, the limit…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Harleysville Mutual Casualty Co. v. BlumlingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Sellers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1966
- Bryant v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Virginia · 1965
- Stephens v. Allied Mutual Insurance CompanyNebraska Supreme Court · 1968
- Aldcroft v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1969
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Glidden v. Farmers Automobile InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1974
- Touchette v. Northwestern Mutual InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1972
- Bradley v. Mid-Century InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1980
- Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
- Lane v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceNebraska Supreme Court · 1981
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.