Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. Jerome

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided August 3, 1992No. 27912-2-IPublished

1DissentColeman, J.

(dissenting) — The dispositive issue in this case is whether Mutual of Enumclaw (MOE) must pay damages on behalf of Joseph Jerome, an insured passenger under the Ederer family car insurance policy, to Matthew Ederer, an insured driver under the same policy. The resolution of that issue depends upon the interpretation of the following policy language:

[MOE] will pay all sums the insured must legally pay as damages, because of bodily injury or property damage to which this insurance applies. Damages must be caused by an accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of a covered…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Boeing Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Transamerica Insurance Group v. United Pacific InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1979
  3. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Centennial InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1975
  4. Richland Knox Mutual Insurance Company v. David Kallen, Sondra Litwin and American Policyholders Insurance Company, Sondra Litwin, Cross v. David Kallen, American Policyholders Insurance Company, Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange and Richland Knox Mutual Insurance Company, CrossCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1967
  5. PEMCO INSURANCE COMPANY v. SchleaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1991

1 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