Elizabeth SMITH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
November 2, 2001.
As Modified November 20, 2001.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Mark P. Robinson, Los Angeles, and Cheong, Denove, Rowell, Antablin & Bennett, John D. Rowell, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, Los Angeles, Sanford Kingsley and Thomas E. McDonald, San Francisco, for Defendant and Respondent United Services Automobile Association.
Thelen Reid & Priest, LLP, Los Angeles, Gary L. Fontana, and Hilary N. Rowen, San Francisco, for Defendant and Respondent 20th Century Insurance Company.
Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, LLP, La Jolla, Paul Alexander, Vanessa Wells, and James R. Knox, Palo Alto, for Defendants and Respondents State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company and California Casualty Insurance Company.
Barger & Wolen, LLP, Irvine, Kent Keller, Steven H. Weinstein and John C. Holmes, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau.
Morrison & Foerster, LLP, John P. Olson, Los Angeles; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Raoul D. Kennedy, San Francisco, for Defendants and Respondents Farmers Insurance Exchange, and Safeco Insurance Company of America.
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, Paul E.B. Glad, San Francisco, and John L. Williams, for Defendants and Respondents Colonial Penn Auto Insurance and Colonial Penn Madison Insurance Company.
Robert M. Wright, Costa Mesa, William J. Moran, Mission Hills, and John K. Beckley, Newport Beach, for Defendant and Respondent Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three.
CROSKEY, J.
In this class action, the representative plaintiffs1 allege that the defendant insurers2 conspired together to require their customers, who sought liability coverage on multiple vehicles, to either purchase uninsured motorist coverage for each vehicle or waive it as to all vehicles. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant insurers claimed...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
