Legal Opinion

Cross v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided February 7, 2018No. CV–17–169PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

....

2. a "hit-and-run" land motor vehicle whose owner or driver remains unknown and which strikes:

a. the insured ; or

b. the vehicle the insured is occupying

and is the proximate cause of bodily injury to the insured.

(Emphasis in policy.)

Cross argues on appeal that she was entitled to UM coverage because she presented a question of fact on the issue of whether she was legally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of an uninsured vehicle. This language is consistent with the language of section 23-89-403, which states that its purpose is to protect those who are legally entitled to…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Higgins v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Alabama · 1973
  2. Kmonk-Sullivan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  3. West American Insurance v. PopaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
  4. Glen R. Vaught v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1969
  5. Young v. Greater Portland Transit DistrictSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1987

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. George Konecny v. Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange and Auto-Owners Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API