Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mendoza v. Rivera-Chavez

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 18, 2000No. 66246-1Published

1DissentTalmadge, J.

(dissenting) — The majority holds Leader National Insurance’s (Leader National) felony exclusion *673clause invalid as against public policy. I disagree. The felony exclusion clause is directly related to the increased risk an insurance company faces when a driver operates an insured vehicle. It is also consistent with Washington public policy relating to drinking and driving and forbidding insurance of illegal conduct. The clause is not contrary to public policy.

The felony exclusion clause at issue reads:

This coverage does not apply to bodily injury or property damage if your covered auto is…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. State Farm General Insurance v. EmersonWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Messersmith v. . American Fidelity Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1921
  3. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. WiscombWashington Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Princeton Insurance v. ChunmuangSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1997
  5. Allstate Ins. Co. v. PeasleyWashington Supreme Court · 1997

31 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