Legal Opinion

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Arms

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided May 1, 1984PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MOORE, Justice:

This appeal by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) presents us with a matter of first impression regarding the duty of an insurance company to offer additional uninsured vehicle coverage to an insured when certain changes occur in a policy. The Superior Court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, Virgil D. Arms, 1 holding that under 18 Del.C. § 3902 defendant’s failure to provide plaintiff the option to increase such coverage, when certain policy changes occurred, constituted a continuing offer which could be accepted by him at any time…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Johnson v. Concord Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  2. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1974
  3. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. AbramowiczSupreme Court of Delaware · 1978
  4. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. SheffieldDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1979
  5. Goodman v. Continental Casualty CompanySuperior Court of Delaware · 1975

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Graham v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Delaware · 1989
  2. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. KennerSupreme Court of Delaware · 1990
  3. Hurst v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Delaware · 1995
  4. Makela v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1986
  5. Home Insurance Co. v. MaldonadoSupreme Court of Delaware · 1986

46 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