![]() While he was driving the Nissan, insured was involved in an accident with an underinsured motorist. The Nissan policy had a UM/UIM limit of $25,000 per person, and the Subaru policy had a UM/UIM limit of $100,000 per person. Insured owned a Nissan and his wife owned a Subaru, both of which were insured under separate policies by insurer. Upon reconsideration we now conclude that the exclusion is void. Thereafter, the supreme court granted the insured's petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded with directions that the matter be reconsidered in light of DeHerrera v. We concluded that the exclusion was valid, enforceable, and applied to the circumstances presented. 29, 2001)(not selected for official publication), we addressed the validity of the exclusion in a motor vehicle insurance policy limiting coverages, including uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) coverage, to insured's injuries while occupying a vehicle insured under that policy. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., (Colo.App. ![]() Plaintiff, Ignacio Jaimes (insured), appeals the trial court's judgment in favor of defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (insurer). ![]() Laugesen, Denver, CO, for Amicus Curiae Richard W. Patterson, Englewood, CO, for Amicus Curiae Colorado Defense Lawyers Association. Patterson, Nuss & Seymour, P.C., Franklin D. Lutts, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee. McFarland, Golden, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellant.īayer, Carey & McGee, P.C., Gary L. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |