Case Citator › Roller v. Stonewall Insurance

Roller v. Stonewall Insurance

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Citation
115 Wash. 2d 679
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
28 of 28
Citing cases (total)
28
Treatment dates
2004
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Roller v. Stonewall Insurance was overruled in part. In Butzberger v. Foster, the Washington Supreme Court abandoned the requirement that a person satisfy every factor of the vehicle use test to receive underinsured motorist coverage.
More on how this was screened

Roller had applied that requirement. Its separate holding that a deliberate vehicular assault was not an accident under the policy remains in force and is cited by later courts. All 28 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

28 later cases cite Roller v. Stonewall Insurance; 28 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Roller v. Stonewall Insurance?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The court abandoned the vehicle orientation factor and overruled Roller insofar as it required every vehicle use factor to be satisfied.

    Butzberger v. Foster · Supreme Court of Washington · filed

    Consequently we find it appropriate to abandon the vehicle oriented factor entirely. To the extent Sears and Roller implicitly require all of the Rau factors be met in each case, they are overruled.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Roller v. Stonewall Insurance and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace