18400 Von Karman, Ste. 300, Irvine, CA  92612  |  Tel:  (949) 553-1010   |   Fax:  (949) 553-2050   |    Email Us

Washington

CHOICE OF LAW

Choice of Law Admission of Extrinsic Evidence Insurer Allocation Pre-Tender FeesStatute of Limitations
Most significant contactsFacts knowable to the insurerAllowed if a “reasonable means” exists of segregatingRecoverable6 years
Fluke Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 34 P.3d 809, 815 (Wash. 2001)Truck Ins. Exch. v. Vanport Homes, Inc., 58 P.3d 276, 281 (Wash. 2002)
Kienle v. Flack, 416 F.2d 693, 695–96 (9th Cir. (Wash.) 1969) (“An insurer who has failed to perform a duty to defend will not be permitted to escape the rigors of the estoppel rule by arguing that a complaint against its insured was outside its policy, unless the complaint could not have been amended to state a claim within the policy coverage. (E.g., Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263; Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., Inc. v. Pacific Indem. Co. (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 432; cf. Journal Pub. Co. v. General Cas. Co.(9th Cir. 1954) 210 F.2d 202.).”).		National Steel Constr. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., , 543 P.2d 642, 644 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975)
Broten v. McDermott, 744 P.2d 1085, 1091 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987)		Griffin v. Allstate Ins. Co., , 29 P.3d 777, 779 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001)
Axis Surplus Ins. Co. v. James River Ins. Co., 635 F.Supp.2d 1214, 1218 (W.D. Wash. 2009)		(RCWA § 4.16.040)
Pre-Judgment Interest Late Notice Public Policy Bar Independent CounselAtty's Fees/Decl. Relief Action
12%Notice-prejudiceBar to indemnity and defenseMay not choose own counselRecoverable
(RCWA §§ 4.56.110 and 19.52.020)Churchill v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 234 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1190 (W.D. Wash. 2002)Mendoza v. Rivera-Chavez, 999 P.2d 29, 40 (Wash. 2000)Johnson v. Continental Cas. Co, 788 P.2d 598, 601 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990)
Northern Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 955 F.2d 1353, 1359 (9th Cir. 1992)		Olympic Steamship Co., Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 811 P.2d 673, 681 (Wash. 1991)