Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

Darner Motor Sales v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.

Arizona Supreme Court
682 P.2d 388 (1984)


Darner Motor Sales, Inc. (Darner) (plaintiff) sold and rented cars. Darner bought insurance from Universal Underwriters Insurance Company (Universal) (defendant) through Universal’s agent, John Doxsee (defendant). Darner’s first Universal policy covered Darner’s rental vehicles, including liability coverage. Under the rental policy, Darner’s renters were covered up to $15,000 for one injury and up to $30,000 for one accident. The policy also provided liability coverage for Darner up to $100,000 for any one injury and up to $300,000 for one accident. However, Darner mistakenly thought the higher $100,000/$300,000 limits applied to the renters too, and Darner’s rental forms incorrectly stated that renters were covered for these higher amounts. A few years later, Darner bought an umbrella policy from Universal and renewed the rental policy. The new rental policy documents, however, provided the $15,000/$30,000 liability coverage limits only. Darner asked Doxsee about this, and Doxsee told Darner that, if needed, the umbrella policy would raise the limits to the $100,000/$300,000 level. Darner believed that Doxsee meant the umbrella policy would cover both Darner’s renters and Darner at the higher levels. Based on the conversation with Doxsee, Darner did not read the umbrella policy. Later, Darner rented a car to Dwayne Crawford using a rental agreement listing the $100,000/$300,000 limits. Crawford caused an accident and was sued. Universal said that Crawford’s coverage was limited to the rental policy’s $15,000/$30,000 amounts because the umbrella policy excluded renters from the definition of “insured.” Crawford sued Darner, and Darner sued Universal and Doxsee. The trial court granted summary judgment for Universal and Doxsee, and the appellate court affirmed. Darner appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Feldman, J.)

Concurrence (Cameron, J.)

Dissent (Holohan, C.J.)

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 499,000 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 499,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial