Legal Opinion

Tewell, Thorpe & Findlay, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided January 27, 1992No. 26646-2-IPublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAgid, J.

This appeal arises out of a declaratory judgment action challenging the denial of coverage by Continental Casualty Company under a professional liability policy issued to the appellant law firm. Specifically, appellants Tewell, Thorpe & Findlay, Inc., P.S. (Tewell Thorpe) and Richard J. Thorpe appeal the trial court's rulings (1) declining to hold that the disputed language of the policy was ambiguous as a matter of law, and (2) granting respondent Continental Casualty's motion in limine excluding evidence regarding the dismissal of the underlying legal malpractice claim. We affirm the trial…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. State Farm General Insurance v. EmersonWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Morgan v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaWashington Supreme Court · 1976
  3. E-Z Loader Boat Trailers, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Roller v. Stonewall InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Professional Managers, Inc. v. Fawer, Brian, Hardy & ZatzkisCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Liebling v. Garden State Indem.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2001
  2. International Surplus Lines Insurance v. Manufacturers & Merchants Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1995
  3. Mendoza v. Rivera-ChavezCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1997
  4. McAllister v. Agora Syndicate, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2000
  5. McAllister v. Agora Syndicate, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2000

11 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