Legal Opinion
Allstate Insurance v. Bowen
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided May 3, 2004No. 52713-4-IPublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCox, C.J.
An insurer’s duty to defend its insured against a claim is broader in scope and distinct from its duty to indemnify its insured.1 Because the complaint of Gregory Bowen and Joelle Chizmar did not expressly rule out potential coverage of the claim against Mary Mautz, and John and Susan Mautz (“the Mautzes”), Allstate Insurance Company had a duty to defend against the claim. However, discovery during the litigation established that there was no coverage under the policies of insurance for the claim. Consequently, there was no duty of Allstate to indemnify its insureds under the two policies at…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Olympic Steamship Co., Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1991
- McDonald v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1992
- State Farm General Insurance v. EmersonWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Commercial Union Ins.Washington Supreme Court · 2001
- Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Commercial Union InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2000
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. BowenCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
- Zurich American Insurance v. Public StorageDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2010
- American Best Food, Inc. v. Alea London, Ltd.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2007
- American Best Food, Inc. v. ALEA LONDONCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
- Allstate Insurance v. BowenCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.