Legal Opinion

Greengo v. Public Employees Mutual Insurance

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 23, 1998No. 64218-4PublishedCited by 49 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSanders, J.

Two questions are posed: first, whether an underinsured motorist (UIM) antistacking clause in an insurance policy is valid where it limits an insured’s UIM recovery to one recovery per accident from whatever source; and second, whether the serial collision in this case constitutes one accident or two. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the antistacking clause at issue is valid. *803However, we cannot conclude from the record that only one accident occurred and, accordingly, reverse and remand.

FACTS

Twenty-seven-year-old Laurie Greengo was severely injured when the car in which she was riding…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Olympic Steamship Co., Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Leingang v. PIERCE CO. MED. BUREAU, INC.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Leingang v. Pierce County Medical Bureau, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. WA. PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRICTS'UTILITY SYSTEMWashington Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Clements v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1993

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

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. Donegal Mutual Insurance v. BaumhammersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. State v. AhoWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  3. State v. AhoWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Greengo v. Public Employees Mut. Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Mader v. Health Care AuthorityWashington Supreme Court · 2003

44 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