Legal Opinion
Chicago Title Insurance v. Office of the Insurance Commissioner
Washington Supreme Court
Decided August 1, 2013No. 87215-5PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWiggins, J.
¶1 Washington State strictly regulates how insurance may be provided and marketed in order to protect the consumer. Applicable statutes and regulations prohibit an insurer or its agent from giving out inducements for the purpose of obtaining title insurance business. Chicago Title Insurance Company (CTIC) appointed Land Title Insurance Company as its agent for the purpose of soliciting and effectuating CTIC’s insurance policies. Land Title violated the anti-inducement laws. We hold that CTIC is responsible for Land Title’s regulatory violations, pursuant to statutory and common-law theories…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Barry & Barry, Inc. v. Department of Motor VehiclesWashington Supreme Court · 1972
- Verizon Northwest, Inc. v. Employment Security DepartmentWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- Verizon Northwest, Inc. v. Wash. Emp. SEC. Dept.Washington Supreme Court · 2008
- Kamla v. the Space Needle CorporationWashington Supreme Court · 2002
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Barbara Knapke v. Peopleconnect, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2022
- Keodalah v. Allstate Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2019
- Cashmere Valley Bank v. Department of RevenueWashington Supreme Court · 2014
- Wilcox v. BasehoreWashington Supreme Court · 2017
- T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.