Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Anderson

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to extend coverage under an analogous policy provision because “the truck involved here was not a ‘covered auto.’”
• contrasting section 10-4-620, which “does not specifically state who must be insured,” with the provisions of the No-Fault Act on which the Pacheco court relied, and upholding a definition of “insured” that was restricted to use of a “covered auto”
• “[S]ection 10-4-601(5) specifically allows liability coverage to be predicated upon using a motor vehicle that is described in the policy.”
• section 10-4-620 “does not specifically state who must be insured”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).