Ellis v. William Penn Life Assurance Co. of America
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentMadsen, J.
(dissenting) — I respectfully dissent. In an effort to protect beneficiaries and to give effect to this state’s *19"twisting” regulations, the majority undermines this state’s law of estoppel and its public policy regarding misrepresentations. In this process, it rewrites the insurance policies at issue to provide coverage where none exists. To achieve this result, the majority relies on two New York cases which have heretofore been followed almost exclusively by only the New York courts. See Tannenbaum v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co., 41 N.Y.2d 1087, 364 N.E.2d 1122, 396 N.Y.S.2d 351 (1977);…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Robinson v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Saunders v. Lloyd's of LondonWashington Supreme Court · 1989
- Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. CoxWashington Supreme Court · 1988
- McCoy v. Northwestern Mutual Relief Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- Carew, Shaw & Bernasconi, Inc. v. General Casualty Co. of AmericaWashington Supreme Court · 1937
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.