Legal Opinion

Yosemite Insurance v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided November 3, 1982No. 12996PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Per Curiam: 1

Appellant Yosemite Insurance Company (hereinafter “Yosemite”) contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (hereinafter “State Farm”) and applying Yosemite’s general policy limits to determine proration of settlement payments.

In 1977 Thomas Pursel, insured by State Farm, was involved in an automobile accident while test driving an automobile for prospective purchase. The vehicle was owned by Justin Enterprises, Inc., dba Justin Auto Sales and Leasing and was insured by Yosemite under a garage liability insurance…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Estate of Neal Ex Rel. Delgado v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeNevada Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Arceneaux v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Travelers Insurance v. LopezNevada Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Catania v. State Farm Life InsuranceNevada Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Allstate InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1971

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Farmers Insurance Group v. Stonik Ex Rel. StonikNevada Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Windsor Insurance Co. v. LucasMissouri Court of Appeals · 2000
  3. Leader Nat. Ins. v. AMERICAN HARDWARENebraska Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Neumann v. STANDARD FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORDNevada Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceNevada Supreme Court · 1998

10 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