Legal Opinion

Mavashev v. Windsor Insurance Co.

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided May 8, 2003No. 02CA1244PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Judge STERNBERG. *

The determinative issue in this appeal is whether an uninsured motorist (UM) insurance contract that contains a corroboration clause is void as a violation of public policy.

The clause provides that, in a hit-and-run accident where the vehicles do not make contact, the policy will provide coverage only if the fact of the accident is corroborated by evidence other than the testimony of a person making a claim under the policy. We find this provision to be contrary to public policy and therefore reverse the judgment that reached a contrary conclusion.

On the night of…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Meyer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1984
  2. Terranova v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1990
  3. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. NissenSupreme Court of Colorado · 1993
  4. Huizar v. Allstate Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1998
  5. Peterman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1998

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Boulter v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.District Court, D. Montana · 2018
  2. Alabassi v. T.I.B. Insurance BrokersCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2020
  3. Uhl v. Progressive Direct Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API