Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cedell v. Farmers Insurance

Washington Supreme Court

Decided February 21, 2013No. 85366-5Published

1Dissent

Alexander, J.**

¶23 (dissenting) —Although I agree with the majority that we should remand to the trial court for “further proceedings,” I disagree with its determination that these proceedings should be conducted consistent with the majority opinion. Majority at 690.1 reach that conclusion because the majority incorrectly determines that an insurer, like Farmers Insurance Company, is not entitled to the protections provided by the statutory attorney-client privilege in a bad faith action by a first-party insured. That, of course, is the position advanced by the petitioner here, Bruce Cedell.…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Medical CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. ButlerWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Smith v. Safeco Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Smith v. Safeco InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Dayton v. Farmers Insurance GroupWashington Supreme Court · 1994

26 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