Legal Opinion
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Dotson
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided March 18, 1996No. 95SC122PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Kourlis
We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals opinion in Dotson v. Estate of Pearson, 903 P.2d 19 (Colo.App.1994), holding that a named insured exclusion1 in an automobile liability insurance contract is contrary to the public policy of the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act, sections 10-4-701 to -725, 4A C.R.S. (1994 & 1995 Supp.), and therefore, void. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
I
We derive the following facts from the parties’ summary judgment motions before the trial court.
Rhonda Dotson and Robert Pearson purchased an automobile insurance policy from Farmers…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Bertrand v. Board of County Commissioners of Park CountySupreme Court of Colorado · 1994
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. McMichaelSupreme Court of Colorado · 1995
- Meyer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1984
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. HeisermanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1995
- Kral v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1989
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2009
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. SteinSupreme Court of Colorado · 1997
- Doering Ex Rel. Barrett v. Copper Mountain, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2001
- Pompa v. American Family Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
- Allstate Insurance Co. v. JunielColorado Court of Appeals · 1996
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.