13 Wash. 2d 263 - Trinity Universal Insurance v. Willrich’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 54 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"This policy may be cancelled by the company by mailing to the insured at the address shown in this policy written notice stating when not less than five days thereafter such cancellation shall be effective. The mailing of notice as aforesaid shall be sufficient proof of notice and the effective date and hour of cancellation stated in the notice shall become the end of the policy period."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Nosser · Medford v. Pacific National Fire Insurance

2. “* * * the more recent, and we think the better reasoned, cases from other jurisdictions sustain the validity of such cancellation clauses and hold that the mailing of written notice, in accordance with the provisions of such a clause, is sufficient, whether or not such notice is actually received by the insured.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Selken v. Northland Insurance Company · Medford v. Pacific National Fire Insurance

3. ““Respondent would * * * have been required to defend not only the tort action against Willrich, but the subsequent suit against itself as well. Under such circumstances it would not have had a satisfactory remedy for the assertion of its claim that it was no longer liable on the insurance policy previously issued to Willrich. “In our opinion the declaratory judgments law is peculiarly adapted and intended for the settlement of controversies such as that presented here.” 142 A.L.R. at p. 6. “A determination of this obligation beforehand relieves the insurer of its dilemma in this respect and is of benefit to the injured persons since it is to their interest to discover before the issues of negligence are litigated whether there will be available as an asset of the tort-feasor the proceeds of the insurance policy. * * * Accordingly, it has been held or conceded in numerous cases that an insurer is entitled to be advised by means of a declaratory judgment whether or not it is obligated to defend and indemnify the insured against claims upon which suits are threatened or have already been brought.” Annotation 142 A.L.R. 67 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Temperance Insurance Exchange v. Carver