Legal Opinion
Maryland Casualty Co. v. City of Seattle
Washington Supreme Court
Decided October 30, 1941No. 27860PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, C. J.
Arcorace & Coluccio, contractors, entered into a written contract with the city of Seattle to construct a sewer. The instrument read, in part, as follows:
“The contractor shall not commence work under this contract until he has obtained all insurance required under this paragraph and such insurance has been approved by the owner and the state director, nor shall the contractor allow any sub-contractor to commence work on his sub-contract until all similar insurance required of the sub-contractor has been so obtained and approved.
“ (b) Property Damage Insurance
“The contractor shall take out and…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- United States Rubber Co. of California v. American Bonding Co. of BaltimoreWashington Supreme Court · 1915
- Building Contractors' Ltd. Mutual Liability Insurance v. Southern Surety Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
- Merchants Mutual Casualty Co v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
- New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Detroit Fidelity & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
- American Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. National Surety Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1919
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Better Financial Solutions, Inc. v. Transtech Electric, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2002
- Better Financial Solutions, Inc. v. Transtech Electric, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2002
- Hamilton v. WhittakerWashington Supreme Court · 1947