PROGRESSIVE EXP. INS. CO. v. Russell

How courts have described this case

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

• confirming that a policy providing UM coverage for accidents “arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an automobile” does not extend coverage in circumstances “where the automobile merely transports or contained the assailant”
• applying the three part inquiry quoted in Race in an uninsured motorist case
• plaintiff who was hit in the face with an object by a criminal assailant who left his vehicle to assault the plaintiff was not entitled to UM benefits because the plaintiff's injuries did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an uninsured motor vehicle

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).