110 Wash. 2d
Volume 110 — Washington Reports, Second Series
74 opinions
- 110 Wash. 2d 1Seattle Western Industries, Inc. v. David A. Mowat Co. (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 16State v. Wilbur (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 24Disciplinary Proceeding v. Koehler (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 32State v. Ng (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 49Daggs v. City of Seattle (2003)
- 110 Wash. 2d 60Regnier v. Department of Labor & Industries (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 65Casa Del Rey v. Hart (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 74State v. Jones (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 86In Re the Personal Restraint of Benninghoven (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 90State v. Standifer (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 95In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Butler (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 99Detweiler v. J. C. Penney Casualty Insurance (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 114Pud 1 v. Perc (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 114Public Utility District No. 1 v. Public Employment Relations Commission (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 128Adkins v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AM. (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 163Snohomish County v. Thorp Meats (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 175In Re the Personal Restraint of Irwin (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 183State v. Brayman (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 207National Union Fire Insurance v. Zuver (1988)
<bold>[1] Insurance — Construction of Policy — Ambiguity — Test —</bold> <bold>Effect.</bold> An insurance policy is ambiguous if two or more reasonable and fair interpretations are possible on the face of the contract when the whole policy is read according to the way it would be understood by the average person. Any ambiguity must be construed most favorably to the insured. <bold>[2] Insurance — Exclusions — Construction — In General.</bold> Exclusionary clauses in insurance policies are construed most strictly against the insurer. <bold>[3] Aviation — Insurance — Exclusions — Characterization of</bold> <bold>Flight — VFR or IFR.</bold> For purposes of aviation insurance requiring that the pilot possess the proper weather rating, the flight of an aircraft is characterized as under visual flight rules (VFR) or under instrument flight rules (IFR) solely on the basis of the weather conditions at the time and place of departure. GOODLOE, BRACHTENBACH, ANDERSEN, and DURHAM, JJ., concur by separate opinion; UTTER and CALLOW, JJ., did not participate in the disposition of this case.
- 110 Wash. 2d 207NAT. UNION FIRE INS. CO. OF PITTSBURGH v. Zuver (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 216LaMon v. Butler (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 239Kowal v. GRANGE INSURANCE ASS'N (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 249Aydelotte v. Audette (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 253State v. Collins (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 263State v. Ciskie (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 288Washington Irrigation & Development Co. v. United States (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 305Jenkins v. Stables (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 308MacEy v. Department of Employment Security (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 326In Re the Personal Restraint of Jeffries (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 355Grimwood v. University of Puget Sound, Inc. (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 368Aetna Life Insurance v. Bunt (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 381Burkhart v. Harrod (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 403State v. Kitchen (2004)
- 110 Wash. 2d 415Hoffer v. State (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 444In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Yates (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 454City of Seattle v. Mesiani (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 466State v. Wethered (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 475Pippins v. Jankelson (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 483Vanderpool v. Grange Insurance Ass'n (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 504State v. Belgarde (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 520Standard Insurance Co. v. Schwalbe (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 528State v. Miller (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 541City of Spokane v. Fischer (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 546Johnson v. Schafer (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 555Morelli v. Ehsan (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 564State v. Maxon (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 577State v. Rice (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 643Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. Cox (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 658State v. Smith (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 675Loudon v. Mhyre (1988)
<bold>[1] Witnesses — Privileges — Physician-Patient Privilege —</bold> <bold>Waiver — Ex Parte Communication With Physician.</bold> A plaintiff's waiver of the physician-patient privilege does not obviate the need for the defendant to utilize formal discovery procedures for communicating with the physician; ex parte communication between the defendant and the physician is not authorized.
- 110 Wash. 2d 682State v. Scott (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 695Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 706State v. Murray (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 716McCausland v. Bankers Life Insurance Co. of Nebraska (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 728State v. Barefield (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 738State v. Gonzalez (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 752Grange Insurance Ass'n v. State (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 766State v. Reece (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 793In Re the Personal Restraint of King (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 806Stone v. CHELAN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 812McCarthy v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVS. (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 812McCarthy v. Department of Social & Health Services (1988)
<bold>[1] Industrial Insurance — Employer's Immunity — Scope —</bold> <bold>Noncovered Occupational Disease — Effect.</bold> The exclusive remedy provision of the Industrial Insurance Act (RCW Title 51) does not bar common law actions against an employer for work-related diseases which fall outside the basic coverage of the act.<page_number>Page 813</page_number> <bold>[2] Industrial Insurance — Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals</bold> <bold>— Finality of Decision.</bold> A ruling of the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals which is not appealed cannot be relitigated in a subsequent action. <bold>[3] Industrial Insurance — Employer's Immunity — Scope —</bold> <bold>Noncovered Occupational Disease — Burden of Proof.</bold> An employee seeking a common law tort remedy for an occupational disease against his employer has the burden of proving that the disease is outside the basic coverage of the Industrial Insurance Act. BRACHTENBACH, J., PEARSON, C.J., and UTTER, DOLLIVER, ANDERSEN, and DURHAM, JJ., concur by separate opinion.
- 110 Wash. 2d 827State v. Ford (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 845Wagenblast v. Odessa School District No. 105-157-166J (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 859State v. Thomas (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 873Harper v. State (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 886State v. SP (1988)
<bold>[1] Statutes — Construction — Acts Relating to Same Subject.</bold> Related statutory provisions should be interpreted in relation to each other with all provisions being harmonized and given effect. <bold>[2] Juveniles — Juvenile Justice — Disposition — Right of</bold> <bold>Confrontation — Predisposition Report.</bold> Under RCW <cross_reference>13.40.150</cross_reference>(1), a juvenile offender has a right to confront a "reasonably available" author of a predisposition report that is used, pursuant to RCW <cross_reference>13.40.150</cross_reference>(3)(c), at the juvenile's disposition hearing if it is relevant and material in determining his disposition. ANDERSEN, J., concurs in the result only; DURHAM, J., did not participate in the disposition of this case.
- 110 Wash. 2d 892In Re Eaton (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 902Maybee v. Machart (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 907State v. Sohappy (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 912Hash v. Children's Orthopedic Hospital & Medical Center (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 917Department of Labor & Industries v. Auman (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 925In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Simmons (1988)
- 110 Wash. 2d 933In Re the Recall of Morrisette (1988)