Legal Opinion

Oregon Mutual Insurance v. Barton

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided December 13, 2001No. 19151-6-IIIPublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

— An insurance settlement induced by fraudulent misrepresentations is void. But the misrepresentations must be relevant and must predate the settlement. Here, Oregon Mutual Insurance Company accused its insured, George Barton, of arson, but only after it had agreed to a settlement, issued the settlement drafts along with a proof of loss statement, and after Mr. Barton had negotiated the drafts. It then sued to void the settlement agreement and its policy with Mr. Barton. A jury found that Mr. Barton did not commit arson but did misrepresent aspects of his claim — but only after settlement.…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Olympic Steamship Co., Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Folsom v. Burger KingWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Folsom v. Burger KingWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Queen City Farms, Inc. v. Central Nat'l Ins. Co. of OmahaWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Commercial Union Ins.Washington Supreme Court · 2001

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Condon v. CondonWashington Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Oregon Mut. Ins. Co. v. BartonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  3. Pruitt v. Douglas CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
  4. Pruitt v. Douglas CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
  5. Allstate Insurance v. HustonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004

26 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