Legal Opinion

Kenworthy v. Pennsylvania General Insurance

Washington Supreme Court

Decided September 21, 1989No. 54950-8, 55149-9PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrachtenbach, J.

These consolidated cases concern a single issue, i.e., the validity of a policy provision in under-insured motorist (UIM) coverage which requires the claimant to pay part of the arbitration costs when a question of coverage or amount of recovery goes to arbitration. We hold the arbitration cost provisions to be void as violative of RCW 48.22.030(3).

In the Kenworthy v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Company case, claimant, Marcea Kenworthy, was injured in an automobile accident while driving her daughter's car. Kenworthy made a claim on her daughter's UIM policy, which was denied by…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Touchette v. Northwestern Mutual InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Britton v. Safeco Insurance Co. of AmericaWashington Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Finney v. Farmers Insurance Co. of WashingtonWashington Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Keenan v. INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTHWESTWashington Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Nickla v. Industrial Fire & Casualty InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1976

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Clements v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Dayton v. Farmers Insurance GroupWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Winters v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Winters v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Quinn Kyrkos v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1993

19 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