Legal Opinion · Dissent

Queen Anne Park Homeowners Ass'n v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 18, 2015No. 90651-3Published

1DissentFairhurst, J.

¶12 (dissenting) — This case presents the question of “[w]hat does ‘collapse’ mean under Washington law in an insurance policy that insures ‘accidental direct physical loss involving collapse,’ . . . but does not define ‘collapse.’ ” Queen Anne Park Homeowners Ass’n v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 763 F.3d 1232, 1235 (9th Cir. 2014). By defining “collapse” as “ ‘substantial impairment of structural integrity,’ ” the majority expands the meaning of “collapse” from its commonsense and traditional definition. Majority at 487. Because “substantial impairment of structural integrity” is too far…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Boeing Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Overton v. Consolidated Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Overton v. Consolidated InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Beach v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
  5. Central Mutual Insurance Co. v. RoyalSupreme Court of Alabama · 1959

7 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