Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,400+ case briefs...

Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

Arizona Supreme Court
854 P.2d 1134 (1993)

Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.


Taylor (plaintiff) purchased a car insurance policy from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (State Farm) (defendant). Taylor’s policy included uninsured motorists coverage up to a limit of $15,000. Taylor was involved in an accident involving several other vehicles. Many of the drivers sued Taylor and obtained a verdict against Taylor for approximately $2.5 million above his policy limits. The owner of one vehicle was uninsured. Months after the jury returned the verdict against Taylor, State Farm paid Taylor $15,000 in uninsured motorist’s benefits in exchange for Taylor’s signature on a release. The release provided that Taylor released “all contractual rights, claims, and causes of action he ha[d] or may have against STATE FARM under the policy of insurance, in connection with the collision…and all subsequent matters.” A State Farm representative directed that “general release language,” with no mention of bad faith, be used in the release. Taylor filed suit against State Farm, claiming that they failed to settle with the other drivers within the policy limits, and that State Farm acted in bad faith in connection with the release. State Farm moved for summary judgment, claiming that the release precluded Taylor’s bad faith claim. Taylor moved for summary judgment, claiming that the release did not preclude his claim. The trial judge denied both motions, finding that, because of the ambiguity of the release, parol evidence would be admissible at trial for the purpose of interpretation. The matter went to trial, and a jury returned a verdict in favor of Taylor. State Farm appealed. The court of appeals held that the release was not ambiguous and, therefore, admitting parol evidence was in error. Taylor appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Feldman, 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 496,000 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 496,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,400 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