Legal Opinion
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Fennema
New Mexico Supreme Court
Decided March 28, 2005No. 28,626PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CHÁVEZ, Justice.
{1} Appellant Russell Fennema appeals a district court summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 1 . The district court held that State Farm was not liable for underinsured motorist benefits to Fennema because Fennema breached a contract provision requiring Fennema to obtain the written consent of State Farm before settling his claim with the tortfeasor and her insurance carrier (consent-to-settle provision). Fennema argues that despite his breach of contract, recent developments in New Mexico insurance law require State Farm to show…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Romero v. Dairyland InsuranceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1990
- Sloan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2004
- Lambert v. State FarmSupreme Court of Alabama · 1991
- Taylor v. Government Employees Insurance Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1999
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Woznicki v. GEICO Morse v. Erie InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2015
- Raja v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co.District Court, D. New Mexico · 2018
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Taxation & RevenueNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2006
- Progressive Direct Insurance v. JungkansAppellate Court of Illinois · 2012
- Salas v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Co.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2007
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.