Legal Opinion

Murray v. Mossman

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 13, 1960No. 35094PublishedCited by 67 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHill, J.

— This is an appeal from an order dismissing a writ of garnishment, and presents an issue of first impression in this state.

The appellants, Edward F. Murray, Jr., and Margaret Murray, his wife, claim that their judgment debtor, Charles D. Mossman, has a cause of action against the respondent, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company (hereinafter called the insurancé company ), because the latter, through negligence or bad faith, failed to avail itself of an opportunity to settle the case: within the limit's of liability contained intheinsurance policy which it had issued to Mossman. To avail itself of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Comunale v. Traders & General InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Brown v. Guarantee InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  3. Auto Mutual Indemnity Co. v. ShawSupreme Court of Florida · 1938
  4. Francis v. NewtonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1947
  5. Wessing v. American Indemnity Co. of Galveston, Tex.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1955

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

3Cited by67 opinions

  1. Tank v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. ButlerWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Gray v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  4. Kranzush v. Badger State Mutual Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Phil Schroeder, Inc. v. Royal Globe InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1983

62 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