Taylor v. State Farm

Taylor v. State Farm - Contracts 11/3 Parol Evidence Rule...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Contracts 11/3 Parol Evidence Rule Taylor v. State Farm, Supreme Court of Arizona, 1993 Facts : Taylor was in a car wreck and he was found liable for $2.5M in excess of what his insurance policy covered. Taylor sued State Farm for bad faith, claiming that State Farm improperly failed to settle the Rivers matter within policy limits. State Farm asserted that Taylor relinquished his bad faith claim when, in 1981, he signed a release drafted by his attorney in exchange for State Farm’s payment of $15,000 in uninsured motorist benefits. The judge said the release was ambiguous and therefore admitted parol evidence. Taylor released “all contractual rights, claims, and causes of action he had or may have against State Farm under the policy of insurance… in connection with the collision… and all subsequent matters .” Taylor argued that the bad faith claim was a tort and was therefore neither covered nor intended to be covered by the language releasing “all contractual” claims. Procedure
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/10/2011 for the course LAW 501 taught by Professor Roy during the Fall '08 term at Ole Miss.

Page1 / 2

Taylor v. State Farm - Contracts 11/3 Parol Evidence Rule...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online