Legal Opinion
National Surety Corp. v. Immunex Corp.
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided July 25, 2011No. 64712-1-IPublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAppelwick, J.
¶1 Immunex challenges the trial court ruling that National Surety does not have a duty to defend in several lawsuits challenging Immunex’s use of an inflated average wholesale price. National Surety cross appeals the trial court’s order that it compensate Immunex for defense costs until the time of the court’s ruling on the duty to defend unless it can show prejudice at trial. We affirm.
FACTS
¶2 Immunex Corporation and many other drug manufacturers were sued in at least 23 complaints (AWP litigation) alleging several claims relating to Immunex artificially inflating its average wholesale price…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Buss v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- Tank v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1986
- General Agents Insurance Co. of America, Inc. v. Midwest Sporting Goods Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 2005
- Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Commercial Union Ins.Washington Supreme Court · 2001
- Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Commercial Union InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2000
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- National Surety Corp. v. Immunex Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 2013
- Midmountain Contractors Inc. v. American Safety Indemnity Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2012
- Crawford v. FCA US LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2021
- Economy Premier Assurance Company v. Tek-Line Construction IncDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2019
- Ericka M. Rickman v. Premera Blue CrossCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.