Suchta v. Robinett
Wyoming Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
THOMAS, Justice.
Floyd Suchta seeks from this court the promulgation of a rule that an automobile liability insurance company owes a duty to its insured to advise him with respect to his reciprocal claim for damages, and to protect his interests in that regard. The opinion of this court in Woodstock v. Evanoff, Wyo., 550 P.2d 1132 (1976), leads to the ineluctable conclusion that our law recognizes no such duty. We then must affirm the rulings of the trial court in Suchta’s action to recover damages on the dual theories of breach of contract and negligence. The defendants (appellees here)…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Landers v. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 1964
- Howard G. Dindo v. Harold O. WhitneyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1971
- Long v. Union Indemnity Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
- Rothtrock v. Ohio Farmers InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Isaacson v. BoswellNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Austin v. CoxSupreme Court of Alabama · 1986
- Martin v. FrettDistrict Court, Virgin Islands · 1980