Greengo v. Public Employees Mutual Insurance
Washington Supreme Court
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
- Olympic Steamship Co., Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1991
- Leingang v. PIERCE CO. MED. BUREAU, INC.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
- Leingang v. Pierce County Medical Bureau, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
- Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. WA. PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRICTS'UTILITY SYSTEMWashington Supreme Court · 1988
- Clements v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Donegal Mutual Insurance v. BaumhammersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- State v. AhoWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- State v. AhoWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- Greengo v. Public Employees Mut. Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
- Mader v. Health Care AuthorityWashington Supreme Court · 2003
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.