Legal Opinion

City of Oak Harbor v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided April 16, 2007No. 57959-2-IPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1 — At issue is whether St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company met its burden to show there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the application of its faulty work exclusion to the City of Oak Harbor’s (City) claim under its all-risks policy. Because this record shows there was no genuine issue of material fact and St. Paul was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm.

Cox, J.

¶2 In 2002, the City hired R&R Environmental, Inc., to dredge biosolids from lagoons located in the City’s waste-water treatment plant. The City and R&R signed a contract for this service. The contract,…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. McDonald v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Herron v. Tribune Publishing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Kitsap County v. Allstate InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Kitsap County v. Allstate Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Findlay v. United Pacific InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1996

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. City of Oak Harbor v. ST. PAUL MERCURY INS.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2007
  2. Stafne v. Snohomish CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2010
  3. Eagle West Insurance Co. v. SAT, 2400, LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2016
  4. Stafne v. Snohomish CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2010
  5. Carl W. Schwartz v. King CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2020

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API