Legal Opinion · Dissent

Chicago Title Insurance v. Office of the Insurance Commissioner

Washington Supreme Court

Decided August 1, 2013No. 87215-5Published

1DissentJ.M. Johnson, J.

¶48 (dissenting) — In Washington State, the freedom of contract is one of our most highly prized liberties. Indeed, impairment of contracts is constitutionally prohibited in article I, section 23 of the Washington Constitution. The simple knowledge that legal contracts will be enforced by the rule of law in courts encourages entrepreneurs to innovate, increasing the quality of life for our citizens. The actions of the Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC) and today’s majority opinion undermine this bedrock principle. Because the majority fails to respect a business relationship that…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. King v. RivelandWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Hollingbery v. DunnWashington Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Day v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Larner v. TORGERSON CORPORATIONWashington Supreme Court · 1980
  5. First American Title Insurance v. Department of RevenueWashington Supreme Court · 2001

5 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