Mendoza v. Rivera-Chavez
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSanders, J.
We are asked whether a clause in an automobile insurance policy which excludes coverage for use of the vehicle “in the commission of any felony” is *661ambiguous or void as against public policy. We hold, following Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. Wiscomb, 97 Wn.2d 203, 643 P.2d 441 (1982), the clause is void as against public policy. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals and remand.
I
Facts
Eliza and Jose Mendoza were seriously injured when their Nissan pickup was in a head-on collision with a Subaru station wagon that had crossed the center fine of the road. One of the passengers in the Subaru…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Boeing Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1990
- State Farm General Insurance v. EmersonWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. WiscombWashington Supreme Court · 1982
- Touchette v. Northwestern Mutual InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1972
- Greer v. Northwestern National InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1987
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- American Continental Ins. Co. v. SteenWashington Supreme Court · 2004
- In Re DomingoWashington Supreme Court · 2006
- Hamm v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2004
- New Hampshire Indem. Co., Inc. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2003
- New Hampshire Indemnity Co. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2003
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.