Legal Opinion
Johnson v. Continental Insurance
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided August 15, 2000No. 1 CA-CV 99-0354PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GARBARINO, Judge.
¶ 1 The Ranchers/Farmers Deluxe (RFD) comprehensive insurance policy at issue in this appeal includes, among other coverages, primary motor vehicle coverage and umbrella coverage. We hold that an insurer is not required by Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated (A.R.S.) section 20-259.01 (Supp.1999) 1 to offer underinsured motorist coverage in an amount equal to the policy limits of the um brella coverage. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in the insurer’s favor.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 A vehicle driven by Sandra Rupelt crossed the center line and collided with…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. GilmoreArizona Supreme Court · 1991
- Libra Group, Inc. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1991
- Ormsbee v. Allstate InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1993
- Thomas v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
- Beck v. Budget Rent-A-CarAppellate Court of Illinois · 1996
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Amhs Insurance Company, Risk Retention Group, a Foreign Corporation v. Mutual Insurance Company of Arizona, an Arizona Corporation, Amhs Insurance Company, Risk Retention Group, a Foreign Corporation v. Mutual Insurance Company of Opinion Arizona, an Arizona CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Melendez v. Hallmark InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
- AMHS Insurance v. Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001