Legal Opinion

Hill v. American Family Mutual Insurance

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 2011No. 36311PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

W. JONES, Justice.

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

In this case, an underinsured-motorist claimant asks this Court to invalidate an “exhaustion clause” requiring her to exhaust the full limits of the tortfeasor’s insurance policy before being eligible for underinsuredmotorist benefits.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Marcie Hill, the appellant, was injured in a two-car accident with Andrea Hamilton in November of 2005. Andrea, who was fifteen years old, was talking on a cell phone when she unexpectedly turned her vehicle left in front of Hill’s, who was approaching in the opposing lane of traffic.…

2Cases cited92 opinions

  1. Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Brown v. FelsenSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. MottleySupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  5. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. McGuireSupreme Court of the United States · 1911

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Eller v. Idaho State PoliceIdaho Supreme Court · 2019
  2. De Smet Insurance Co. of South Dakota v. PourierSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Jordan v. Safeco Insurance Co. of AmericaColorado Court of Appeals · 2013
  4. Eastman v. Farmers InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 2018
  5. Neustadt v. ColafranceschiIdaho Supreme Court · 2020

23 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