Pacific Indem. Co. v. Thompson

Decision Date08 September 1960
Docket NumberNo. 35337
CitationPacific Indem. Co. v. Thompson, 355 P.2d 12, 56 Wn.2d 715 (Wash. 1960)
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesPACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY, a corporation, Respondent, v. William THOMPSON and Jane Doe Thompson, his wife, and Wesley Thompson, Defendants, Martha Margaret Harris, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Nicholas Harris, Deceased, Appellant.

Edwin R. Johnson, Tacoma, for appellant.

Guttormsen, Scholfield, Willits & Ager, by Jack P. Scholfield, Seattle, for respondent.

FOSTER, Judge.

Respondent insurance company, by declaratory judgment procedure, sought adjudication of the extent of its liability under a family automobile liability policy in which defendantWilliam Thompson is the named insured.The judgment declares that the insurance is limited to ten thousand dollars for injury or death of one person.Martha Harris, both in her own right and as administratrix of her husband's estate, appeals.Her husband was killed in a collision with a car driven by the son of the insured William Thompson, which car was one of three covered by respondent's insurance policy.

Because the policy limits on each of the three cars owned by the Thompsons is ten thousand dollars, appellant contends that the maximum coverage is, therefore, three times that sum.The argument, based on condition No. 4 of the policy (which provides that all of the policy's terms shall apply separately to each described automobile), is that contributing coverage is thereby afforded.However, that provision merely assures the applicability of the policy to whichever car is involved in an accident, or to all the cars, and does no more.

The contract limits the company's liability for bodily injury or death of one person arising out of one occurrence to a maximum of ten thousand dollars,...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
40 cases
  • Slack v. Robinson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • May 1, 2003
    ...Houser v. Gilbert, 389 N.W.2d 626 (N.D. 1986); Thompson v. Cont'l Ins. Cos., 291 S.C. 47, 351 S.E.2d 904 (1986); Pac. Indem. Co. v. Thompson, 56 Wash.2d 715, 355 P.2d 12 (1960); Payne v. Weston, 195 W.Va. 502, 466 S.E.2d 161 (1995); Shamblin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 175 W.Va. 337, 332 S......
  • Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. Grimstad-Hardy
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • September 7, 1993
    ...ambiguity when read together with the policy's limit of liability section, thus stacking was not permitted. Pacific Indem. Co. v. Thompson, 56 Wash.2d 715, 716, 355 P.2d 12 (1960). The court noted the purpose of a separability clause is to render the policy applicable to whichever insured c......
  • Emick v. Dairyland Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • August 6, 1975
    ...listed under the policy, and one of the listed automobiles is involved in an accident. As the court stated in Pacific Indem. Co. v. Thompson, 56 Wash.2d 715, 355 P.2d 12 (1960), referring to a typical separability clause: "that provision merely assures the applicability of the policy to whi......
  • Employers Liability Assur. Corp., Ltd. v. Jackson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 29, 1972
    ...Mutual Ins. Co., 255 Or. 425, 467 P.2d 963; Castle v. United Pacific Insurance Group, 252 Or. 44, 448 P.2d 357; Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson, 56 Wash.2d 715, 355 P.2d 12; Polland v. Allstate Insurance Company, 25 A.D.2d 16, 266 N.Y.S.2d 286 (New York); Hilton v. Citizens Insurance Comp......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • 3.3.1 Intra-Policy Stacking
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona Liability Insurance Law Chapter 3 Multiple Coverage Issues (Sections 3.1 to 3.9)
    • Invalid date
    ...Div. 1974); Polland v. Allstate Insurance Co., 25 A.2d 16, 266 N.Y.S.2d 286 (1966); Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson, 56 Wash. 2d 715, 355 P.2d 12 (1960). In the foregoing cases the contention was made that the limits of liability clause was ambiguous when the policy also had a separabilit......