Page 1 of 12 SYLLABUS Insurance Law A583, Spring 2012

advertisement
Last updated: March 22, 2012
SYLLABUS
Insurance Law A583, Spring 2012
Compressed Schedule
Karen Southworth Weaver
Soha & Lang, P.S.
1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, Washington 98101
tel: 206-654-1691; e-mail: [email protected]
Law School Office Hours: by appointment
Law School Secretary: Ann Bates
[email protected]
Class meets in room 116 William H. Gates Hall on Mon./Wed. 8:30a.m. – 10:20am, plus
Fri., 4/13 and Fri., 4/27, same time, loc. TBA.
Handouts available on course website.
Learning Goals
Insurance law may not initially sound like the most interesting subject in the world (ahem), but past
students have repeatedly told me that this was the single most useful course they took in law school. If
you practice civil law, you will absolutely have occasion to refer back to concepts and issues we cover
in this class. Insurance issues permeate civil law, especially civil litigation.
By the end of this course a successful student will have learned: 1) how insurance works, what types of
risks are suitable for private insurance and what risk characteristics are “uninsurable”; 2) basic
principles of risk management; 2) how to read and interpret an insurance policy; 3) fundamental
principles and characteristics of property & casualty insurance; 4) what is a liability insurer’s “duty to
defend”; 5) what is a “reservation of rights” and what are its consequences to insurer and to insured; 6)
multiple theories of insurer extracontractual liability (aka “bad faith” law); 7) you will be familiar with
key Washington insurance cases; and 8) you will impress the heck out of attorneys and judges you may
work with as a summer associate, an intern, a clerk, or as a new practicing lawyer. You will also gain a
good idea of basic coverages you, as an individual, should be carrying to protect yourself and your loved
ones. Plus, we have fun.
Attendance
This course is on the compressed class schedule. Our last day of class is May 16. The final exam will
be on the date assigned by the law school. The law school requires that each student attend at least 80%
of class sessions in each course. Due to the compressed schedule, the nature of this topic and the lack of
a suitable textbook, class attendance is, in fact, extremely important. If you miss classes, you will be
at a severe disadvantage. I will ask the law school to record the first week of class, so that anyone
joining the class late will not have missed those sessions. Recording thereafter, however, will depend on
having enough students actually attend class in person. We will discuss this on the first day of class.
Page 1 of 12
Last updated: March 22, 2012
Course Materials
There is no casebook for this class. I have reviewed many published casebooks, and they are simply
unsatisfactory. Course materials will therefore consist of a combination of handouts and of published
cases, statutes and regulations. Handouts will be posted on the course website. In the past, students
have preferred to print the legal sources themselves, off of Lexis or Westlaw, or to copy them from the
published reporters. Absent a class consensus to the contrary, that is how we will proceed, however we
will discuss this issue on the first day of class. The cases I assign for reading are, by and large, classic
insurance coverage cases that you will have occasion to consult again and again once you are in practice,
especially if you practice in the State of Washington. Some cases will be relevant to several different
assignments. I recommend that you print the cases out and put them into a three-ring binder for repeated
reference.
Grading and Written Assignments
All students must take the final exam. Due to the compressed schedule there will be no research paper
option this year.
All written work will be graded on a “blind” basis, using student numbers, with answers submitted
through Academic Services. I will seek an exemption from curve grading for this class, though I cannot
guarantee the school will give an exemption. Your final grade will be calculated as follows:
15% - “Basic Fact Pattern” (take-home). This assignment will be CR/NC, but if the answer shows
significant problems with subject mastery, you will have to re-do it to obtain CR. You will
have one opportunity to resubmit an answer which is initially graded NC.
15% - Write a “reservation of rights” letter based on a fact and coverage scenario that will be
provided (take-home). This assignment will be graded. There will be one “re-do”
opportunity (optional) and the highest of the two grades will be used.
20% - “Claim Problem” (take-home). This will be graded. There will be no “re-do” opportunity on
this assignment.
50% - Final Exam (non-take-home). The final will consist of one or two “fact patterns” with
questions to be answered from each fact pattern. There may be one additional question
which would be more theoretical in approach. All necessary insurance policy language will
be provided. In the past, my exams have been limited open book, meaning that you may only
rely on materials that were part of the class assignments and on notes that you have
personally created and/or that are from a study group to which you have actually contributed
written work product. No hornbooks, nutshells, or other commercially prepared materials
that were not part of class materials are permitted. No internet access. The Honor Code
applies and will be enforced. We will discuss computer usage for exams the first week of
class.
Reading Assignments
The following schedule of reading assignments is current as of the beginning of the quarter, and is
subject to modification as the quarter progresses. There may be occasions where a topic assigned for
one class session will run over into a subsequent class session. Students are responsible for making
themselves aware of what readings are required for any particular class session, as announced
during prior classes. Depending on student plans for geographic and subject matter practice, and on
the possibility of outside speakers, I may assign additional or substitute readings during the quarter.
Page 2 of 12
Last updated: March 22, 2012
You will note that one class session currently has no assigned topic or reading. I have built this in as a
“catch-up” class session. We definitely will meet that day, and you will be notified in advance of the
topic and readings for that day.
Where page numbers are in boldface, only the boldfaced pages are assigned.
Class Date
Topic
Reading Assignment
M 03-26-12
Introduction to Class
Risk Management
What is Insurance
Types of Insurers
Regulation of Insurance
Handout 1 – “Insurance Intro”
(begins with “A Brief History of
Insurance”, by Richard S.L. Roddis)
W 03-28-12
Characteristics of Insurable Loss
Review of Handout 1
Handout 2 – Insurable Interest 2011
Insurable Interest: Life
Insurable Interest Life:
In re: Estate of D’Agosto, 134 Wn.
App. 390, 139 P.3d 1125 (2006).
RCW 48.18.020 - .030.
Insurable Interest Property:
Gossett v. Farmers, 133 Wn.2d
954, to 974 only, 948 P.2d 1264
(1997).
RCW 48.18.040 - .050.
Insurable Interest: Property
M 04-02-12
W 04-04-12
Measuring Loss
Handout 3 – Measuring Loss Rev. 2011
RCW 48.27.010-020;
Allemand v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 160
Wn. App. 365, 248 P.3d 111 (2011),
review granted, 171 Wn.2d 1028 (2011).
Co-insurance
Wetmore v. Unigard Ins. Co., 125
Wn.App. 938, 107 P.3d 123 (2005) (coinsurance).
Subrogation
Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wn.2d 398, 398421, 957 P.2d 632 (1998);
Leader National v. Torres, 113 Wn.2d
366, 779 P.2d 722 (1989).
Reading a Policy
Find and bring an insurance policy to
class (preferably a policy of your own);
CG 00 01 12 04 will be provided – bring
Page 3 of 12
Last updated: March 22, 2012
this to future class sessions.
Rules of Interpretation
Rules of interpretation:
MacDonald v. State Farm, 119
Wn.2d 724 (facts and 733-36
only), 837 P.2d 1000 (1992).
st
1 party/3rd party:
Rones v. Safeco, 119 Wn.2d 650,
835 P.2d 1036 (1992).
1st party/3d party/Standing
M 04-09-12
Reading Personal Lines Policy
Homeowners versus Auto
Property versus Liability
“Basic Fact
Pattern” will be Auto Coverages other than UIM
handed out;
answers due
to Academic
Services on
Monday, 4/16,
before end of
class on 4/16
Personal lines policy will be provided. If
you have your own to refer to, you will
learn something about your own coverage.
Handout - Weaver, “Personal Auto
Coverages in Washington” (including
update);
State Capital Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut.
Ins. Co., 318 N.C. 534, 350 S.E.2d 66
(1986) (including dissents);
PIP Coverage:
RCW 48.22.005, .085-.100;
WAC 284-30-500 (PIP)
Begin UIM
RCW 48.22.030-.040 (UIM)
W 04-11-12
UIM Coverage (cont.)
Subrogation and Setoff revisited
RCW 48.22.030-.040
Hamilton v. Farmers Ins., 107 Wn.2d 721,
733 P.2d 213 (1987);
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tripp, 144 Wn.2d
1, 1-19, 25 P.3d 997 (2001);
Bohme v. Pemco Mut. Ins. Co., 127
Wn.2d 409, 899 P.2d 787 (1995).
F 04-13-12
The Fortuity Requirement:
Accident in 1st Party Policies
Known Loss
Accidents and Accidental
Losses/Occurrences in 3rd Party
Policies
Hillhaven Properties, Ltd. v. Sellen
Constr. Co., Inc., 133 Wn.2d 751, 948
P.2d 796 (1997).
Safeco v. Butler, 118 Wn.2d 383, 386-88,
400-03, 823 P.2d 499 (1992) (full case
used on subsequent topics).
Page 4 of 12
Last updated: March 22, 2012
M 04-16-12
“Basic Fact
Pattern”
answer due to
Academic
Services before
end of class
CG 00 01 12 04 – read insuring agreement
and exclusions for Section I.A. “Bodily
Injury and Property Damage Liability”.
CGL

History, structure

“occurrence”

Who is Insured
o Named/by def’n
o Separability
o Additional
Insureds
History:
Queen City Farms v. Central
National, 126 Wn.2d 50, 75-76
only (1994).
“Occurrence”/ Accident:
E-Z Loader Boat Trailers, Inc. v.
Travelers Indem. Co., 106 Wn.2d
901, 726 P.2d 439 (1986).
Queen City Farms v. Central Nat’l
Ins. Co., 126 Wn.2d 50, 64-72
only (1994).
Safeco v. Butler, 118 Wn.2d 383,
386-88, 400-03, 823 P.2d 499
(1992).
Who is Insured:
Unigard v. Leven, 97 Wn.App.
417, 983 P.2d 1155 (1999).
Separability and Additional Insureds:
Truck Ins. Exch. v. BRE
Properties, 119 Wn. App. 582, 81
P.3d 929 (2003).
Look for separability language in
CG 00 01 12 04 (look in CGL
“Conditions”)
[Optional: Oregon’s approach to
additional insureds: Walsh Constr. v. Mut.
of Enumclaw, 338 Ore. 1, 104 P.3d 1146
(2005).]
W 04-18-12
CGL cont.
 Insuring agreements
o BI/PD
Bodily Injury and “occurrence”:
E-Z Loader Boat Trailers, Inc. v.
Travelers Indem. Co., 106 Wn.2d
901, 726 P.2d 439 (1986).
“Property Damage”:
Prudential Prop & Cas. Co. v.
Lawrence, 45 Wn. App. 111, 724
P.2d 418 (1986).
Page 5 of 12
Last updated: March 22, 2012
(W 04-18-12,
cont.)
M 04-23-12
Reservation of
rights
assignment
will be handed
out. Answers
due to
Academic
Services by
end of class on
Monday,
April 30.
Personal Injury/Advertising Injury:
Read CG 0001 policy language for
“Section I - Coverage B – Personal
and Advertising Injury Liability”
insuring agreement and definitions
o ”Personal Injury”/
of “advertisement”, “advertising
Advertising
injury”, “personal injury”, and
Injury
“personal and advertising injury”;
Amazon.com Int’l, Inc. v.
American Dynasty Surplus Lines
Ins. Co., 120 Wn. App. 610, 85
P.3d 974 (2004);
Auto Sox USA, Inc. v. Zurich N.
Am., 121 Wn. App. 422, 88 P.3d
1008 (2004).

Claims Made/Occurrence
[no assigned reading]

Common Exclusions
Exclusions: look over the exclusions in
Coverage I.A.2.
Duty to Defend:
 What is duty to defend
 Rules for determining
whether insurer has duty
to defend or not
 Scope of defense that
must be provided
 Reservation of Rights
Defense
 Ethical Issues
Rules for Determining DD:
Truck Ins. Exch. v. VanPort Homes, Inc.,
147 Wn.2d 751 (2002);
Amer. Best Foods, Inc. v. Alea London,
Ltd., 168 Wn.2d 398, 229 P.3d 693 (2010);
R.A. Hanson Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 26 Wn.
App. 290, 296, 612 P.2d 456 (1980).
Reservation of Rights Defense (WA):
Tank v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 105
Wn.2d 381, 715 P.2d 1133 (1986).
Ethical Issues:
Tank v. State Farm, supra;
Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Ben Arnold-Sunbelt
Beverage Co., 433 F.3d 365 (4th Cir. 2005)
(excellent survey of nationwide law)
W 04-25-12
Duty of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing
 Nature, Source, Scope of
Duty
 Standing
 Remedies
RCW 48.01.030
RCW 48.30.010
Note: The following cases are relevant to
several class sessions. These are classic,
very important bad faith cases. Read them
in full, read them well.
Page 6 of 12
Last updated: March 22, 2012
(W 04-25-12,
cont.)
Tank v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 105
Wn.2d 381, 715 P.2d 1133 (1986);
Safeco Ins. Co. of Amer. v. Butler, 118
Wn.2d 383, 823 P.2d 499 (1992);
Kirk v. Mt. Airy Ins. Co., 134 Wn.2d 558,
951 P.2d 1124 (1998);
Coventry Associates v. American States
Ins. Co., 136 Wn.2d 269, 961 P.2d 933
(1998);
Mut. of Enumclaw v. Dan Paulson Constr.,
161 Wn.2d 903, 169 P.3d 1 (2007);
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Onvia,
165 Wn.2d 122, 196 P.3d 664 (2008);
Amer. Best Foods, Inc. v. Alea London,
Ltd., 168 Wn.2d 398, 229 P.3d 693 (2010).
CPA & IFCA Claims:
RCW 19.86.090 (CPA)
RCW 48.30.015 (IFCA)
WAC 284-30-300 to 380
Indus. Indem. Co. of the NW v.
Kallevig, 114 Wn.2d 907, 921 only,
792 P.2d 520 (1990).
F 04-27-12
M 04-30-12
Reservation of
rights
assignment due
to Academic
Services by
end of class
today.
“Claim
Problem” will
be handed out.
Answers due
to Academic
Services by
end of class on
Monday, May
7.
Good Faith cont.
 Remedies (cont.)
 IFCA
“Reasonableness Hearings” and
associated issues
Handout: IFCA for Regulators
Cases listed in 4-25-12 assignment
RCW 4.22.060
Besel v. Viking Ins. Co., 146 Wn.2d 730,
735, 49 P.3d 887 (2002).
Chaussee v. Maryland Casualty Co., 60
Wn.App. 504, 803 P.2d 1339 (1991).
Handout: Covenant Judgments – TEK (on
course website)
[Optional: Handout - Water’s Edge
Homeowners Assoc. v. Water’s Edge
Assocs., Clark County Cause No. 05-203446-1 (“Ruling on Reasonableness
Hearing”, 01/28/2008) (on course
website).]
Page 7 of 12
Last updated: March 22, 2012
W 05-02-12
Primary/Excess Insurance
Diamond Heights Homeowners Assoc. v.
Nat’l Amer. Ins. Co., 277 Cal Rptr. 906
(1991) (Parts I and IV only);
M. Marick, “Éxcess Insurance: An
Overview of General Principles and
Current Issues,” 24 Tort & Ins. Law J. 715
(1989).
Review: Prudential Prop & Cas. Co. v.
Lawrence, 45 Wn. App. 111, 724 P.2d 418
(1986).
Union Carbide Corp. v. Affiliated FM
Insurance Co., 16 N.Y.3d 419, 947 N.E.2d
111, 922 N.Y.S.2d 220, 2011 WL 588470
(NY Ct. App.) (2011) (annualization of
limits in following form policy).
“Other Insurance” Clauses
New Hampshire Indem. Co. v. Budget
Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 148 Wn.2d 929,
64 P.3d 1239 (2003);
Mission Ins. Co. v. Allendale Mut., 95
Wn.2d 464, 626 P.2d 505 (1981).
[Optional: Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. Oregon
Auto. Ins. Co., 219 Or. 110, 341 P.2d 110
(1959), as modified by 219 Or. 110, 346
P.2d 643 (1959) (minority rule).]
M 05-07-12
Answer to
“Claim
Problem” due
to Academic
Services by
end of class
today.
Trigger / Proration / # Occs
 Trigger of Coverage
 Proration of Coverage
 Number of Occurrences
Trigger of Coverage:
Gruol Construction v. INA, 11 Wn.App.
632, 524 P.2d 427 (1974).)
Handout: KSW Trigger of Coverage Paper
(on course website)
(Classic but optional reading: Keene v.
INA, 667 F.2d 1034 (D.C. Cir. 1981)).
Allocation:
Northern States Power Co. v. Fidelity &
Casualty Co. of New York, 523 N.W.2d
657 (Minn. 1994);
Number of Occurrences:
Transport Indem. v. Lee Way Motor
Freight, 487 F. Supp. 1325 (N.D. Tex.
1980)
Page 8 of 12
Last updated: March 22, 2012
KSW Trigger of Coverage Paper (above)
[Optional: Contribution Claim Bars:
Puget Sound Energy v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyds, 134 Wn. App. 228,
138 P.3d 1068 (2006).]
W 05-09-12
Trigger/Proration/# Occs (cont.)
Efficient Proximate Cause
Efficient Proximate Cause Rule:
Graham v. Pub. Employees, Mut. Ins. Co.,
98 Wn.2d 533, 656 P.2d 1077 (1983).
Villella v. Pub. Employees Mut. Ins. Co.,
106 Wn.2d 806, 725 P.2d 957 (1986).
Toll Bridge Auth. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 54
Wn. App. 400, 773 P.2d 906 (1989).
Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. Patrick
Archer Constr. Co., 123 Wn. App. 728
(2004).
M 05-14-11
Policy Conditions
 Notice/Cooperation
 Voluntary Payments
Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Ben Arnold-Sunbelt
Beverage Co., 433 F.3d 365 (4th Cir. 2005)
(previously assigned);
Unigard v. Leven, 97 Wn. App. 417, 983 P.2d
1155 (1999) (previously assigned);
Canron v. Federal Ins. Co., 82 Wn. App. 480,
918 P.2d 937 (1996) (thru section III, p. 492).
W 05-16-11
LAST DAY OF CLASS
Catch up on prior topics
REVIEW all topics
Probable instructor evaluation
No new reading
Topic Not
Currently
Assigned
Effectuation and Termination of
Coverage
Isaacson v. DeMartin Agency, Inc., 77 Wn.
App. 875 (1995);
Statewide Ins. v. Dewar, 143 Ariz. 553, 694
P.2d 1167 (1984);
Anderson v. Vrahnos, 149 Ill. App. 251, 500
N.E.2d 1986).
Please feel free to contact me with any questions. You can easily reach me via email or phone. I
would be happy to correspond by those means or to meet with you at the law school at an agreed time.
email: [email protected]
tel: 206-654-1691 (direct)
Page 9 of 12
Last updated: March 22, 2012
List of Assigned Readings
as of first day of class
(Instructor reserves right to change or supplement)
Cases
Allemand v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 160 Wn. App. 365, 248 P.3d 111, review granted, 171
Wn.2d 1028 (2011). (We will be watching for WA Supreme Court decision.)
Amazon.com Int’l, Inc. v. American Dynasty Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 120 Wn. App. 610, 85
P.3d 974 (2004).
Amer. Best Foods, Inc. v. Alea London, Ltd., 168 Wn.2d 398, 229 P.3d 693 (2010).
Auto Sox USA, Inc. v. Zurich N. Am., 121 Wn. App. 422, 88 P.3d 1008 (2004).
Besel v. Viking Ins. Co., 146 Wn.2d 730, 735, 49 P.3d 887 (2002).
Bohme v. Pemco Mut. Ins. Co., 127 Wn.2d 409, 899 P.2d 787 (1995).
Canron v. Federal Ins. Co., 82 Wn. App. 480, 918 P.2d 937 (1996) (thru section III, p.
492).
Chaussee v. Maryland Casualty Co., 60 Wn.App. 504, 803 P.2d 1339 (1991).
Coventry Associates v. American States Ins. Co., 136 Wn.2d 269 (1998).
Diamond Heights Homeowners Assoc. v. Nat’l Amer. Ins. Co., 277 Cal Rptr. 906 (1991)
(Parts I and IV only).
E-Z Loader Boat Trailers, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 106 Wn.2d 901, 726 P.2d 439
(1986).
Gossett v. Farmers, 133 Wn.2d 954, to 974 only, 948 P.2d 1264 (1997).
Graham v. Pub. Employees, Mut. Ins. Co., 98 Wn.2d 533, 656 P.2d 1077 (1983).
Gruol Construction v. INA, 11 Wn.App. 632, 524 P.2d 427 (1974).
Hamilton v. Farmers Ins., 107 Wn.2d 721, 733 P.2d 213 (1987).
Hillhaven Properties, Ltd. v. Sellen Constr. Co., Inc., 133 Wn.2d 751, 948 P.2d 796 (1997).
In re: Estate of D’Agosto, 134 Wn. App. 390, 139 P.3d 1125 (2006).
Indus. Indem. Co. of the NW v. Kallevig, 114 Wn.2d 907, 921, 792 P.2d 520 (1990).
Keene v. INA, 667 F.2d 1034 (D.C. Cir. 1981)(classic, but optional).
Kirk v. Mt. Airy Ins. Co., 134 Wn.2d 558, 951 P.2d 1124 (1998).
Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. Oregon Auto. Ins. Co., 219 Or. 110, 341 P.2d 110 (1959), as
modified by 219 Or. 110, 346 P.2d 643 (1959) (minority rule) (optional).
Leader National v. Torres, 113 Wn.2d 366, 779 P.2d 722 (1989).
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tripp, 144 Wn.2d 1, 1-19, 25 P.3d 997 (2001).
MacDonald v. State Farm, 119 Wn.2d 724 (facts and 733-36 only), 837 P.2d 1000 (1992).
Page 10 of 12
Last updated: March 22, 2012
Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wn.2d 398, 398-421, 957 P.2d 632 (1998).
Mission Ins. Co. v. Allendale Mut., 95 Wn.2d 464, 626 P.2d 505 (1981).
Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. Patrick Archer Constr. Co., 123 Wn. App. 728 (2004).
Mut. of Enumclaw v. Dan Paulson Constr., 161 Wn.2d 903, 169 P.3d 1 (2007).
New Hampshire Indem. Co. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 148 Wn.2d 929, 64 P.3d
1239 (2003).
Northern States Power Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 523 N.W.2d 657
(Minn. 1994).
Prudential Prop & Cas. Co. v. Lawrence, 45 Wn. App. 111, 724 P.2d 418 (1986).
Puget Sound Energy v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, 134 Wn. App. 228, 138 P.3d 1068
(2006) (optional).
Queen City Farms v. Central National, 126 Wn.2d 50, 64-72, 75-76 only (1994).
R.A. Hanson Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 26 Wn. App. 290, 296, 612 P.2d 456 (1980).
Rones v. Safeco, 119 Wn.2d 650, 835 P.2d 1036 (1992).
Safeco Ins. Co. of Amer. v. Butler, 118 Wn.2d 383, 823 P.2d 499 (1992).
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Onvia, 165 Wn.2d 122, 196 P.3d 664 (2008).
State Capital Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 318 N.C. 534, 350 S.E.2d 66 (1986)
(including dissents).
Tank v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 105 Wn.2d 381, 715 P.2d 1133 (1986).
Toll Bridge Auth. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 54 Wn. App. 400, 773 P.2d 906 (1989).
Transport Indem. v. Lee Way Motor Freight, 487 F. Supp. 1325 (N.D. Tex. 1980).
Truck Ins. Exch. v. BRE Properties, 119 Wn. App. 582, 81 P.3d 929 (2003).
Truck Ins. Exch. v. VanPort Homes, Inc., 147 Wn.2d 751 (2002).
Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Ben Arnold-Sunbelt Beverage Co., 433 F.3d 365 (4th Cir. 2005).
Unigard v. Leven, 97 Wn.App. 417, 983 P.2d 1155 (1999).
Union Carbide Corp. v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co., 16 N.Y.3d 419, 947 N.E.2d 111, 992
N.Y.S.2d 220, 2011 WL 588470 (NY Ct. App.) (2011).
Villella v. Pub. Employees Mut. Ins. Co., 106 Wn.2d 806, 725 P.2d 957 (1986).
Walsh Constr. v. Mut. of Enumclaw, 338 Ore. 1, 104 P.3d 1146 (2005) (Optional).
Wetmore v. Unigard Ins. Co., 125 Wn.App. 938, 107 P.3d 123 (2005).
The Following Cases Are Currently Unassigned (but may be used)
Isaacson v. DeMartin Agency, Inc., 77 Wn. App. 875 (1995).
Anderson v. Vrahnos, 149 Ill. App. 251, 500 N.E.2d 1986).
Statewide Ins. v. Dewar, 143 Ariz. 553, 694 P.2d 1167 (1984).
Page 11 of 12
Last updated: March 22, 2012
Statutes and Regulations
RCW 19.86.090
RCW 48.01.030
RCW 48.18.010 - .050
RCW 4.22.060
RCW 48.22.005, .085-.100
RCW 48.22.030-.040
RCW 48.27.010-020
RCW 48.30.010
RCW 48.30.015
WAC 284-30-300 to 380
WAC 284-30-500
Articles
M. Marick, “Éxcess Insurance: An Overview of General Principles and Current Issues,” 24
Tort & Ins. Law J. 715 (1989).
Handouts
Handout 1 – “Insurance Intro” (begins with “A Brief History of Insurance”, by Richard S.L.
Roddis)
Handout 2 – Insurable Interest Rev. 2011
Handout 3 – Measuring Loss Rev. 2011
Handout - Weaver, “Personal Auto Coverages in Washington” (including update)
Handout: IFCA for Regulators
Handout: Covenant Judgments – TEK
KSW Trigger of Coverage Paper
Water’s Edge Homeowners Assoc. v. Water’s Edge Assocs., Clark County Cause No. 05-203446-1 (“Ruling on Reasonableness Hearing”, 01/28/2008) (optional)
Page 12 of 12
Download