Legal Opinion
Van Vonno v. Hertz Corporation
Washington Supreme Court
Decided December 24, 1992No. 59190-3PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDolliver, J.
Defendant Hertz Corporation challenges a summary judgment holding it hable to plaintiff Nicolaas Van Vonno for greater than the statutory minimum amount of uninsured motorist (UM) coverage and for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. Applying Oregon law, the trial court found Hertz subject to the statutes governing a "motor vehicle liability policy". We affirm.
On July 10, 1988, Van Vonno rented an automobile at the Portland, Oregon, International Airport from Hertz. Van Vonno signed a rental agreement containing the following provision:
Hertz will indemnify, hold harmless, and defend You…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Johnson v. Spider Staging Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1976
- Finney v. Farmers Insurance Co. of WashingtonWashington Supreme Court · 1979
- Hartford Insurance v. Hertz Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
- Herberg v. SwartzWashington Supreme Court · 1978
- Potlatch No. 1 Federal Credit Union v. KennedyWashington Supreme Court · 1969
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- State v. RileyWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- Clements v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
- McSorley v. Hertz Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1994
- American National Fire Insurance Co. v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeUtah Supreme Court · 1996
- In Re the Marriage of LutzCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1994
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.