Legal Opinion
Hayden v. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided April 15, 1999No. 17579-1-IIIPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
— We review a claim of breach of duty to defend and indemnify brought by Hayden Farms on an assignment against Mutual of Enumclaw (MOE). The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Hayden Farms’ declaratory complaint. The trial court ruled MOE (1) had no coverage, (2) no duty to indemnify, and (3) no duty to defend. We agree that the policy excludes indemnification for deficient performance and poor workmanship, and affirm.
FACTS
In the spring of 1988, Dennis Hayden, Randy Hayden and Cosmas St. Hilaire, dba Hayden Farms, planted rootstock intending to graft fruit buds to create fruit…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- State v. ThorneWashington Supreme Court · 1996
- State Farm General Insurance v. EmersonWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1994
- Stuart v. American States InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Stuart v. American States Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hayden v. Mutual of Enumclaw InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- Hayden v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2000
- Hayden v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1999
- Hayden v. Mutual of Enumclaw InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1999