Legal Opinion

Kut Suen Lui v. Essex Insurance Co.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 9, 2016No. 91777-9PublishedCited by 56 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

[As amended by order of the Supreme Court August 15, 2016.]

Wiggins, J.

¶1 — Kut Suen Lui and May Far Lui (the Luis) owned a building that sustained water damage after a pipe burst while the building was vacant. The Luis’ insurance policy for the building limited coverage for water damage in two ways based on vacancy: coverage was suspended if the building remained vacant for 60 consecutive days and, effective at the beginning of any vacancy, there was no coverage for certain specified losses, including water damage. The Luis argue that the policy is ambiguous and should be interpreted in the…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. State v. McFarlandWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Queen City Farms, Inc. v. Central Nat'l Ins. Co. of OmahaWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Commercial Union Ins.Washington Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Commercial Union InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Kitsap County v. Allstate InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by56 opinions

  1. William Merriman, et ux v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2017
  2. J.B. v. Department of Social & Health ServicesWashington Supreme Court · 2017
  3. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. City of TacomaDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2018
  4. Seattle Tunnel Partners, Et Ano., Pet V. Great Lakes Reinsurance (uk) Plc, RespsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2021
  5. Anthony Healy v. Seattle Rugby, LlcCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2020

51 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