Progressive American Insurance v. Vasquez
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
EAGLES, Chief Judge.
Aetna’s Anneal
I
We first consider whether the trial court erred in holding that the excess umbrella policy provides underinsured motorist coverage in addition to the underinsured motorist coverage already provided by the underlying business auto policy. Aetna argues that the umbrella policy does not expressly provide for UIM coverage and that UIM coverage, therefore, can only exist in the umbrella policy if it is read into the policy through G.S. 20-279.21, the Financial Responsibility Act (“the FRA”). Aetna contends that the FRA allows a maximum of $1,000,000.00 in UIM…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Proctor v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
- Manning v. FletcherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
- Isenhour v. Universal Underwriters InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1995
- Lanning v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
- Isenhour v. Universal Underwriters InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1996
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Greenfield v. Cincinnati Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2007
- Hlasnick v. Federated Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- Progressive American Insurance v. VasquezSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1999
- Ranee Greenfield And Stuart Greenfield Vs. The Cincinnati Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Iowa · 2007