Legal Opinion
Seattle Pump Co. v. Traders & General Insurance
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided January 25, 1999No. 41382-1-IPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEllington, J.
Seattle Pump Company’s insurance policy was cancelled by its attorney in fact. We hold that the insurer did not have an obligation to reinstate the policy to cover a loss incurred after cancellation.
Facts
Seattle Pump Company procured a commercial property insurance policy from Traders and General Insurance Co., a division of Houston General Companies.1 Seattle Pump financed the policy with Premium Financing Specialists (PFS). Pursuant to the financing agreement, PFS was Se*746attle Pump’s attorney-in-fact and had full authority to cancel the policy with Houston General if Seattle Pump defaulted.2…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Leingang v. PIERCE CO. MED. BUREAU, INC.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
- Leingang v. Pierce County Medical Bureau, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
- Saunders v. Lloyd's of LondonWashington Supreme Court · 1989
- Estate of Hall v. Hapo Federal Credit UnionCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1994
- Ryman v. American National InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Courchaine v. Commonwealth Land Title InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
- Kinnebrew v. CM Trucking & Construction, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2000
- Janice Courchaine v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2012
- Stan Schiff, M.d., Ph.d., Resp/cross-pet V. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. Et Ano, Pet/cross-respCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2022