Legal Opinion · Dissent

Holden v. Farmers Insurance

Washington Supreme Court

Decided September 9, 2010No. 81487-2Published

1DissentJ.M. Johnson, J.

¶19 (dissenting) — Laura Holden seeks reimbursement under her renters insurance policy for the “actual cash value” (ACV) of personal property damaged during a fire in her apartment. Holden’s insurance policy defines ACV as the “fair market value” (FMV) of the property at the time of loss. Because the majority erroneously holds that a (theoretical) sales tax should be added to the reimbursement based on its conclusion the term FMV is ambiguous, I respectfully dissent.

*762¶20 The majority concludes that the definition of ACV results in ambiguity because of the use of different methodologies to…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. State v. BrownWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Kitsap County v. Allstate InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Overton v. Consolidated Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Kitsap County v. Allstate Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Overton v. Consolidated InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2002

18 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