Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Allstate Insurance Company v. Hague

United States Supreme Court
449 U.S. 302 (1981)


Facts

Ralph Hague was a Wisconsin resident who worked in Minnesota and commuted daily from Wisconsin. One day, Hague was riding as a passenger on someone else’s motorcycle. Hague was killed when a vehicle struck the motorcycle from behind. The accident occurred in Wisconsin. The two drivers of the motorcycle and the vehicle, both of whom were also Wisconsin residents, did not have valid insurance. However, Hague held an insurance policy issued by Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) (defendant). Hauge’s insurance policy with Allstate covered three vehicles and included an uninsured-motorist clause limiting the recoverable amount to $15,000 for each vehicle. Thereafter, Hague’s wife (plaintiff) moved from Wisconsin to Minnesota, less than five miles away. Mrs. Hague was appointed personal representative of Hague’s estate. Mrs. Hague filed suit against Allstate in Minnesota state court seeking a declaration under Minnesota law that the three-vehicle maximum of $15,000 in uninsured-motorist coverage could be stacked to provide a total recoverable amount of $45,000. Allstate argued that a Wisconsin law prohibiting stacking applied. Wisconsin was the state where the policy was issued, where the accident occurred, and where all individuals involved in the crash resided. The trial court disagreed and applied Minnesota law. The trial court granted Mrs. Hague’s motion for summary judgment, and Allstate appealed. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Stevens, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Powell, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.