Scruggs 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.

• “Satisfying the corroboration requirement does not necessarily mean that [claimant] is entitled to payment on his claim.”
• finding as a matter of law that claimant complied with corroboration requirement of A.R.S. § 20-259.01(M) because material facts uncontested
• finding 20 a report’s confirmation of the plaintiff’s “allegation that he veered into the back of the 21 tanker truck at an angle coming from the left” sufficient to meet the corroboration 22 requirement
• “The statute only requires corroboration of the claimant’s depiction of an accident that was caused by such a vehicle.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).