Legal Opinion

Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. T&G Construction, Inc.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 23, 2008No. 80420-6PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChambers, J.

¶1 — We are asked to balance the interests of an insured defendant in reaching a reasonable settlement with a claimant against the insurer’s interest in fully *259litigating its insured’s legal obligation to that claimant. In the case before us, Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company (MOE), the insurer, vigorously defended its insured, a construction corporation, almost to the end. However, MOE declined to participate in the final round of settlement talks. After the talks concluded, MOE challenged the settlement at the reasonableness hearing. Now, in this separate coverage action, MOE challenges…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Olympic Steamship Co., Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Tank v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Miller v. ShugartSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  4. Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. ButlerWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  5. PUD DISTRICT NO. 1, KLICKITAT COUNTY v. International Insurance Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Green v. City of WenatcheeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  2. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Nightingale Healthcare LLC, a Washington Company doing business as Arlington Health and Rehabilitation; Donald StallingsDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2026

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

Powered by the Exa API