Legal Opinion

Viking Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Pacific Indemnity Co.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 25, 1943No. 29145PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBlake, J.

This is an action upon a liability insurance policy which, by endorsement, contained the following provision:

“The Company agrees to insure the Assured against loss by reason of the liability imposed by law upon the Assured for damages (including damage resulting from loss of use of property damaged or destroyed), on account of damage to or destruction of property of any description caused solely and directly as a result of an accident occurring during the effective period of this endorsement by reason of and during the progress of the business operations of the Assured, . . . ”

A major part of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wodnik v. Luna Park Amusement Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Highland v. Wilsonian Investment Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Isaacson Iron Works v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Campbell v. JonesWashington Supreme Court · 1913

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Gruol Construction Co. v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1974
  2. YAKIMA CEMENT PRODUCTS COMPANY v. Great American Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. JeromeWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Kisle v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Yakima Cement Products Co. v. Great American InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1979

3 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