Legal Opinion

Eaquinta v. Allstate Insurance Co.

Utah Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 2005No. 20040582PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DURRANT, Justice:

¶ 1 In this case we must determine whether an insurance company is required to provide underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage to its insured for the death of a person who is not covered under the relevant insurance policy. The district court held that neither the UIM provision of appellant Glor-ya Eaquinta’s insurance policy nor Utah’s insurance code required the appellee, Allstate Insurance Company, to provide UIM coverage to Glorya Eaquinta for the death of her son because he was not covered under her insurance policy. This appeal followed. We now affirm.

BACKGROUND 1

¶ 2 On…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Anderson Development Co. v. TobiasUtah Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Sexton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Forbes v. Harleysville Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1991
  4. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. SellersNebraska Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Valiant Ins. Co. v. WebsterSupreme Court of Florida · 1990

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Burns v. BoydenUtah Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Lewiston State Bank v. Greenline Equipment, L.L.C.Court of Appeals of Utah · 2006
  3. Bush v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 2009
  4. State v. IrelandUtah Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Shuba v. United Services Automobile Ass'nSupreme Court of Delaware · 2013

3 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