Campbell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Utah Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRusson, Associate Chief Justice
¶ 134 Inez Campbell was never involved in the lawsuit underlying the action now before us, nor could she have been. She was not driving the car that caused the accident, she was never named as a defendant, and she never had any exposure to or became legally obligated to pay damages to any of the claimants. State Farm owed no duty to her under the insurance policy. Only her husband Curtis Campbell was potentially liable, was sued, and was subject to the judgment rendered in that case. State Farm’s duty extended only to him.
¶ 135 Ignoring these crucial facts, the trial court in the second stage…
2Cases cited50 opinions
- Crookston v. Fire Insurance ExchangeUtah Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. BrownUtah Supreme Court · 1992
- Ong International (U.S.A.) Inc. v. 11th Avenue Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. SaundersUtah Supreme Court · 1999
- United Fire Insurance v. McClellandNevada Supreme Court · 1989
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.