State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Betty Falness

Good Law
39 F.3d 966·94 Daily Journal DAR 15492·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 30484·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8381
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 2, 199491-15626California1,489 words

Opinion

Opinion

39 F.3d 966 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. Betty FALNESS, Personal Representative of the Estate of Anna Hugg and the Estate of John Hugg, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee. No. 91-15626. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 12, 1992. Submission Deferred March 17, 1993. Resubmitted June 23, 1994. Decided Nov. 2, 1994. Ralph E. Hunsaker, Christopher Robbins, O'Connor, Cavanagh, Anderson, Westover, Killingsworth & Beshears, Phoenix, AZ, for plaintiff-counterdefendant-appellant. Jim Robert Junker, Scottsdale, AZ, for defendant-counterclaimant-appellee. Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Before: FLETCHER, POOLE, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judge: FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 John and Anna Hugg were both named insureds in a policy of automobile liability insurance issued by State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). Both were killed in a collision with another vehicle which was uninsured. It is undisputed that both John Hugg, who was driving the Huggs' vehicle at the time, and the other driver were negligent. 2…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.