Chavez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the insurer may not create gaps in uninsured motorist coverage by creating exclusions dependent upon location or vehicles
• holding that a named insured was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage even though he was occupying an uninsured vehicle at the time of the accident
• holding that exclusion denying coverage if insured was riding in an uninsured vehicle was not valid because “it is not the intent of the [uninsured motorist] statute to limit coverage for an insured to a particular location or a particular vehicle”
• stating that exclusion provisions in insurance contracts will be enforced so long as their meaning is clear and they do not conflict with statute
• stating that insurance provision that conflicts with intent of statute is void
• noting the “ancient wisdom” that a statute should be interpreted so as to effectuate its purpose

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).