Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Cooper v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., No. E047002

By FindLaw Staff on September 18, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In plaintiff's suit against his insurance company for disposing of evidence that was to be used against a tire manufacturer in a product liability suit, trial court's grant of defendant's motion for nonsuit is reversed where: 1) plaintiff set forth a prima facie case that he relied to his detriment on State Farm's promise to preserve the tire; 2) plaintiff's opening statement referred to sufficient prima facie evidence to create a strong inference that the tire was defective and had it not been destroyed, plaintiff would have been able to prove his case against the tire manufacturer; 3) under the present facts, plaintiff's damages are reasonably ascertainable; and 4) plaintiff's pleadings, in conjunction with his opening statement, encompass the legal concepts of promissory estoppel and/or a voluntary undertaking by State Farm.      

Read Cooper v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., No. E047002

Appellate Information

Filed September 17, 2009


Opinion by Judge King


For Appellant: McCune Wright, Richard D. McCune and Kristy M. Arevalo

For Appelle:  Berger Kahn, Sherman M. Spitz, David B. Ezra, and Jeffrey S. Crowe

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard