Legal Opinion

Holden v. Farmers Insurance

Washington Supreme Court

Decided September 9, 2010No. 81487-2PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.

¶1 — Laura Holden purchased a renters insurance policy from Farmers Insurance Company of Washington. In the event of property loss due to fire, the *753policy provides coverage for the “actual cash value” (ACV) of the damaged property. ACV is defined as “fair market value” (FMV) at the time of loss. FMV is not defined. After a fire at her rented home damaged some of her personal property, Holden sought coverage under the ACV provision, which states that payments will not exceed the lesser of either policy limits or “the amount necessary to repair or replace the damaged property.” Clerk’s Papers…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Boeing Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Kitsap County v. Allstate InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Kitsap County v. Allstate Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Quadrant Corp. v. American States Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Woo v. Fireman's Fund InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2007

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. State v. SweanyWashington Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Ainsworth v. Progressive Casualty InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  3. Axis Reinsurance Company v. Northrop Grumman CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
  4. McLaughlin v. Travelers Commercial Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2020
  5. Labrier v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 2015

13 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