Legal Opinion
Tissell v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
Washington Supreme Court
Decided August 2, 1990No. 53340-7PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDore, J.
We hold that certain victim exclusions in underinsured motorist (UIM) policies are invalid as against public policy when asserted against the purchaser of a UIM policy. When so applied, the exclusions limit insurance coverage on a basis other than the risk of the insurer, and therefore contravene this State's long-standing policy of full compensation for accident victims.
*109Facts
Ada Tissell is the named insured on an automobile policy issued by respondent Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The policy provides liability coverage in the amount of $300,000 and underinsured motorist coverage in the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. WiscombWashington Supreme Court · 1982
- Touchette v. Northwestern Mutual InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1972
- Britton v. Safeco Insurance Co. of AmericaWashington Supreme Court · 1985
- Hamilton v. Farmers Insurance Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1987
- Millers Casualty Insurance Co. of Texas v. BriggsWashington Supreme Court · 1983
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Lunsford v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2009
- Lunsford v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2009
- Greengo v. Public Employees Mut. Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
- Greengo v. Public Employees Mutual InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Brown v. Snohomish County Physicians Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.