Rao v. Universal Underwriters, Ins.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding “a potential doubling of the available minimum statutory coverage” to be “irrelevant” because “[N.J.S.A. 20 45:21-1 to -3] do[] not allow for any escape in coverage by such an owner”
• expressly agreeing with Davis v. DeFrank, 33 A.D.2d 236, 306 N.Y.S.2d 827 (1970) and decisional law from Florida, Mississippi and Missouri following similar policy
• step-down provision valid under financial responsibility laws

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).