Legal Opinion
City of Oak Harbor v. ST. PAUL MERCURY INS.
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided June 11, 2007No. 57959-2-IPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
159 P.3d 422 (2007)
CITY OF OAK HARBOR, Appellant,
v.
ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE, Respondent.
No. 57959-2-I.
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.
April 16, 2007.
Publication Ordered June 11, 2007.
Lawrence Gottlieb, Betts Patterson Mines, P.S., Seattle, Counsel for Appellants.
Thomas Daniel Heffernan, Heffernan Law Firm PLLC, Redmond, Counsel for Respondents.
COX, J.
¶ 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 claim under its…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- McDonald v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1992
- Herron v. Tribune Publishing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1987
- Kitsap County v. Allstate InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Kitsap County v. Allstate Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
- Findlay v. United Pacific InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1996
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- James McHugh Construction Co. v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2016
- Stafne v. Snohomish CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2010
- Eagle West Insurance Co. v. SAT, 2400, LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2016
- Stafne v. Snohomish CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2010