Legal Opinion

Cann v. King County

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided April 14, 1997No. 38171-7-IPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtColeman, J.

The Washington state underinsured motorist statute mandates underinsured motorist coverage on all motor vehicle liability policies. RCW 48.22.030(2). Betty Lou Cann argues that as a self-insurer, King County has a liability policy and therefore must provide underinsured motorist coverage for its passengers. The Washington State Supreme Court has held that self-insurance is not a liability policy under the UIM statute. See Kyrkos v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 121 Wn.2d 669, 674, 852 P.2d 1078 (1993); RCW 48.22.030(1). Consequently, we hold that the County, as a self-insurer, has no…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. BrightWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State v. BrightWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Quinn Kyrkos v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Van Vonno v. Hertz CorporationWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Corley v. Hertz Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1994

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. New Hampshire Indem v. Budget Rent-A-CarCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  2. New Hampshire Indemnity Co. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  3. Diaz v. National Car Rental Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1999
  4. Cann v. King CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API