Legal Opinion

Hayden v. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 2000No. 68096-5PublishedCited by 143 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtIreland, J.

— Hayden Farms seeks review of the summary judgment dismissal of its suit against the Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company (MOE) for recovery of insurance benefits and breach of the duty to defend. We hold that the duty to defend was properly denied based on the policy’s “loss of use” exclusion; thus, the Court of Appeals’ decision is affirmed.

I

Facts

Hayden Farms planted rootstock in the spring of 1988 intending to graft scion wood (a tree branch with several buds from a particular species of fruit tree) onto the stock to create a variety of fruit trees. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 92.1 In…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Industrial Indem. Co. of Northwest, Inc. v. KallevigWashington Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Sterilite Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1983
  3. Kirk v. Mount Airy InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Kirk v. Mt. Airy Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Roller v. Stonewall InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1990

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

3Cited by143 opinions

  1. Truck Ins. Exchange v. VanPort Homes, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Overton v. Consolidated Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Truck Insurance Exchange v. VanPort Homes, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Woo v. Fireman's Fund InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Woo v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2007

138 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