Legal Opinion

Lui v. Essex Insur. Co.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 9, 2016No. 91777-9Published

1Opinion of the Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON KUT SUEN LUI and MAY FAR LUI, ) ) Petitioners, ) No. 91777-9 V. ) ) En Bane ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, ) Respondent. ) ) Filed JUN 0 Q 20j6 WIGGINS, J.-Kut Suen Lui and May Far Lui (the Luis) owned a building that sustained water damage after a pipe burst while the building was vacant. The Luis' insurance policy for the building limited coverage for water damage in two ways based on vacancy: coverage was suspended if the building remained vacant for 60 consecutive days and, effective at the beginning of any vacancy, there was no coverage for…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. State v. McFarlandWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Queen City Farms, Inc. v. Central Nat'l Ins. Co. of OmahaWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Commercial Union Ins.Washington Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Commercial Union InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Kitsap County v. Allstate InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1998

14 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