State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Lambert
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
JONES, Justice.
Is the “physical contact” requirement in a “hit-and-run” clause in the uninsured motorist provision of an automobile liability insurance policy in derogation of the Alabama Uninsured Motorist Statute?
While the posture of the proceedings below is not entirely clear, all parties in interest concede that our answer to the foregoing question is dispositive of this appeal. We answer, as did the court below, in the affirmative; and, accordingly, we affirm. 1
This is a case of first impression in Alabama. The pertinent provisions of each policy are as follows:
“COVERAGE U — UNINSURED…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Brown v. Progressive Mutual Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Florida · 1971
- Higgins v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Alabama · 1973
- American Southern Insurance Co. v. Dime Taxi Svc., Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1963
- Mooradian v. Canal Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Alabama · 1961
- Hogan v. Allstate Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Alabama · 1971
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by72 opinions
- United Services Automobile Ass'n AppealSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Pontius v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2005
- Surrey v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Inc. v. GriffinCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1973
- Clark v. Regent Insurance Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1978
67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.