Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sperry v. Maki

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided July 23, 1987No. 7724-1-IIIPublished

1DissentMcInturff, C.J.

(dissenting)—I respectfully dissent because the majority's holding subverts the public policy underlying Washington's underinsured motorist act. That policy is summarized in Finney v. Farmers Ins. Co., 92 Wn.2d 748, 751, 600 P.2d 1272 (1979):

RCW 48.22.030 is to be liberally construed in order to provide broad protection against financially irresponsible motorists. Touchette v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co., 80 Wn.2d 327, 494 P.2d 479 (1972). The purpose of the statute is to allow an injured party to recover those damages which would have been received had the responsible party maintained…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Touchette v. Northwestern Mutual InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Finney v. Farmers Insurance Co. of WashingtonWashington Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Thompson v. Government Employees InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1979
  4. Citrano v. Berkshire Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
  5. Rooney v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance ExchangeMichigan Court of Appeals · 1979

2 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