Legal Opinion

Armstrong v. Safeco Insurance

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided January 8, 1988No. 19084-9-IPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRingold, J.

This case presents an issue of first impression concerning an insurer's refusal to renew an auto policy. RCW 48.18.292(1) requires an insurer which does not renew to give 20 days' notice to the insured and to include the actual reason for refusal to renew.

Jack C. Armstrong, the insured under an auto policy, contends that the statutory requirement of "the actual reason" for nonrenewal requires a reason based upon good cause. Safeco Insurance Company argues that the question *256is entirely legal and the "actual reason is all the statute requires." We summarize the facts which support Armstrong's…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Tank v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Lamon v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Tyler v. Grange Ins. Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1970
  4. Murray v. MossmanWashington Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Meadows v. Grant's Auto Brokers, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1967

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Armstrong v. Safeco InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Armstrong v. Safeco InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API