Washington Case Authority Library

Read the policy as a whole from the standpoint of the average purchaser. Clear language is enforced as written. Ambiguity exists only when language is fairly susceptible to two reasonable interpretations; unresolved ambiguity is construed against the insurer.

Major Washington authority governing construction of insurance exclusions and ambiguity. The insured ordinarily bears the initial burden to establish coverage; the insurer bears the burden of establishing an exclusion.

Important efficient-proximate-cause and policy-language authority. Washington does not use a free-floating reasonable-expectations doctrine to rewrite otherwise enforceable insurance language.

Applies Washington's efficient-proximate-cause doctrine in liability coverage and is important when covered and excluded causal events contribute to the same loss.

Modern Washington Supreme Court policy-interpretation authority. Undefined terms ordinarily receive their plain, ordinary and popular meaning as understood by the average purchaser.

Important both for policy interpretation and for the consequences of an insurer's bad-faith refusal to defend.

Washington's flagship insurance-fee doctrine. When an insured is compelled to litigate to obtain the benefit of insurance coverage, the insurer can be responsible for the insured's reasonable attorney fees.

Applies the Olympic Steamship doctrine in the automobile-insurance context and confirms its importance when an insured must litigate to obtain policy benefits.

Important in defining the boundary of Olympic Steamship. The fee doctrine does not convert every disagreement merely over the value of a covered claim into a coverage dispute.

Part of the Washington Supreme Court's Olympic Steamship line governing recovery of attorney fees in insurance coverage litigation.

Foundational Washington insurer-duty case. A liability insurer must give equal consideration to the insured's interests, and a carrier defending under reservation of rights assumes an enhanced obligation of fairness, investigation, communication and conflict-free defense handling.

Establishes important remedies for qualifying insurer bad faith, including a rebuttable presumption of harm in the reservation-of-rights setting and the doctrine of coverage by estoppel.

An insurer must conduct a reasonable investigation before denying a claim. Suspicion and conjecture are not substitutes for adequate claim investigation.

The duty to investigate is distinct from the ultimate duty to indemnify. An insurer can face bad-faith and Consumer Protection Act consequences for unreasonable claim investigation even where the coverage result ultimately favors the insurer.

Major Washington authority concerning insurer bad faith, Consumer Protection Act remedies and the requirement to prove legally cognizable harm.

Recognizes that insurer claim-handling obligations can create independent bad-faith and CPA issues even where the underlying coverage duties require separate analysis.

IFCA does not create a freestanding private cause of action for every violation of Washington's insurance regulations. Unreasonable denial of coverage or payment of benefits remains central to the statutory cause of action.

Washington's defense obligation is broader than its duty to indemnify. The complaint is construed liberally in favor of triggering a defense where allegations can reasonably be interpreted as creating coverage.

A liability insurer must defend when the complaint, construed liberally, alleges facts that could conceivably impose covered liability.

Explains Washington's narrow use of extrinsic evidence in duty-to-defend analysis and reinforces that an insurer cannot use outside facts simply to manufacture a basis to refuse a defense.

Important modern Washington authority refining when extrinsic facts can be consulted in determining whether the defense obligation exists.

Addresses the professional duties and conflict issues of insurer-appointed defense counsel in reservation-of-rights litigation.

Foundational Washington UIM authority emphasizing that UIM coverage is governed by RCW 48.22.030 and Washington's policy of protecting insured victims from inadequately insured motorists.

Important Washington Supreme Court authority for testing UIM policy limitations against the statute and its protective purpose.

Major decision interpreting Washington's UIM statutory framework and the relationship between tort damages, liability limits and UIM recovery.

Important in disputes over calculation of UIM benefits, limitations and claimed offsets.

A UIM carrier may protect its subrogation rights through settlement notice provisions, but violation of such a provision does not automatically destroy coverage; actual prejudice must be established.

Foundational Washington made-whole authority. An insurer ordinarily takes reimbursement only from amounts remaining after the insured has been fully compensated for the loss.

Major authority concerning PIP reimbursement and allocation of the attorney fees and expenses incurred to create the recovery from which an insurer seeks repayment.

Applies Washington common-fund principles where the insured's efforts generate liability and UIM proceeds from which a PIP insurer seeks recovery.

Important Washington Supreme Court authority applying insured-protection principles to PIP reimbursement, subrogation and offsets.

An insurer cannot add “maximum medical improvement” as a fifth ground for terminating PIP medical benefits beyond the criteria established by Washington's PIP claims regulation.

Reaffirms Washington's broad insured-first made-whole doctrine and its application when an insurer seeks recovery from the insured's compensation.

Foundational Washington failure-to-settle case. The liability carrier must give fair consideration to the insured's exposure and evaluate settlement as though the insurer effectively bore the entire potential judgment.

A covenant not to execute does not eliminate the insured's harm from insurer bad faith. A settlement judicially determined reasonable can become the presumptive measure of damages in the later bad-faith case.

Supplies Washington's nine-factor framework for determining the reasonableness of a covenant settlement.

Confirms judicial determination of covenant-judgment reasonableness and the role of that determination in subsequent insurer litigation.

The Farmers policy language before the Court covered the diminished market value remaining after collision damage had been properly repaired. The case remains an important reminder that repair cost and restoration of market value can be distinct issues.

Major authority explaining Washington's transition to proportionate several liability and the relationship among comparative fault, settlements and contribution.

Important Washington Supreme Court authority applying fault allocation and addressing the joint-and-several-liability exception applicable to a fault-free claimant.

Intentional tort damages are not simply folded into Washington's negligence-based statutory fault allocation. Intentional and fault-based damages must be separated.

Modern Washington Supreme Court authority defining scope of employment and recognizing that mixed personal and employer purposes do not necessarily remove travel from the course of employment.

Employer responsibility can remain where an employee combines personal business with the employer's business and the business purpose materially actuates the trip.

States Washington's general rule that an ordinary commute in an employee's own vehicle ordinarily falls outside scope of employment.

Confirms that direct negligent-retention liability and vicarious liability are analytically distinct and can proceed together even where the employer concedes that the employee acted within the scope of employment.

Clearly distinguishes wrongful-death damages suffered by statutory beneficiaries after death from survival damages belonging to the decedent's qualifying predeath claims.

Confirms Washington's 2019 wrongful-death reforms eliminating the former dependency and United States residency requirements for qualifying second-tier parents and siblings.

Important authority concerning the role of the personal representative and Washington's general wrongful-death limitations framework.

Addresses discovery-rule issues where the facts necessary to identify the cause of death could not reasonably have been known at death.

Washington settlement agreements are contracts. Condon is important when determining whether the parties actually reached an enforceable agreement and which material terms formed part of it.

Also belongs in the settlement library because it confirms Washington's court-centered reasonableness process for covenant judgments.