Pulse v. Northwest Farm Bureau Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 July 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 2288-III,2288-III |
| Citation | 566 P.2d 577,18 Wn.App. 59 |
| Parties | Robert F. PULSE and Phyllis Pulse, husband and wife, Appellants, v. NORTHWEST FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Ross R. Rakow, Goldendale, for appellants.
Gavin, Robinson, Kendrick, Redman & Mays, Joel E. Smith, Yakima, for respondents.
Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment. There are times when appellate court opinions create lawsuits; this may be one such instance.
According to a stipulated factual statement on appeal, the plaintiffs were sued after their cattle broke through the neighbors' fence and damaged the neighbors' miniature golf course. The plaintiffs, represented by their own counsel defended. The matter was tried to the court, which rendered an oral opinion granting the neighbors damages in the amount of $2,953.79. Negotiations thereafter resulted in entry of a judgment on stipulation for $2,653.79.
Thereafter, the Pulses learned that this claim was covered by their "Country Squire" insurance policy and sought to have the insurer pay the judgment.
Section 2 of the defendant's farmers and ranchers comprehensive liability insurance policy, coverage G, states in part:
This Company shall have the right and duty, at its own expense, to defend any suit against the Insured seeking damages on account of such property damage, . . . but may make such investigation and settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient. . . .
A. Notice of Occurrence
When an accident or occurrence takes place, written notice shall be given by or on behalf of the Insured to the Company as soon as practicable, but in no event to exceed 60 days. Such notice shall contain particulars sufficient to identify the Insured and also reasonably obtainable information respecting the time, place and circumstances of the accident, the names and addresses of the injured and of available witnesses. If claim is made or suit is brought against the Insured, the Insured shall immediately forward to the Company every demand, notice, summons, or other process received by him or his representative.
E. Action Against Company
No action shall lie against the Company unless as a condition precedent hereto, there shall have been full compliance with all the terms of Section II, . . .
(Italics ours.)
The insurer's motion for summary judgment, based upon plaintiffs' failure to give notice and their violation of the cooperation clause, was granted. Plaintiffs appeal.
In Oregon Auto Ins. Co. v. Salzberg, 85 Wash.2d 372, 376, 377, 535 P.2d 816, 818, 819 (1975), the court discarded any distinctions between insurance policies purporting to make cooperation a condition precedent and those in which cooperation is only a covenant. The court stated:
The decisions of a majority of courts now simply require that the insurer demonstrate that it was prejudiced by the insured's actions before the cooperation clause will be considered breached so as to relieve the insurer from its obligations under the policy. . . .
In like manner, we deem it no longer appropriate to adhere to the view that the release of an insurer from its obligations without a showing of prejudice to it should depend upon the legalistic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooperative Fire Ins. Ass'n of Vermont v. White Caps, Inc.
...1035 (R.I.1984); Factory Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 256 S.C. 376, 182 S.E.2d 727, 729-30 (1971); Pulse v. Northwest Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 18 Wash.App. 59, 566 P.2d 577, 579 (1977); State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Youler, 183 W.Va. 556, 396 S.E.2d 737, 744 (1990); Dietz v. Hardware Dealers......
-
Pederson's Fryer Farms, Inc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
...the insured. See, e.g., Oregon Auto. Ins. Co. v. Salzberg, 85 Wash.2d 372, 376-77, 535 P.2d 816 (1975); Pulse v. Northwest Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 18 Wash.App. 59, 60-61, 566 P.2d 577, review denied, 89 Wash.2d 1011 (1977), and cases cited therein. Whether an insured breached its obligations ......
-
Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. Usf Ins. Co.
...toxics control act, Laws of 1989, ch. 2). Could the insurer have proceeded differently in the litigation? Pulse v. Nw. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 18 Wash.App. 59, 61-62, 566 P.2d 577 (1977) (reversing trial court's determination of prejudice as a matter of law). This is not an exhaustive list, n......
-
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co.
...922 P.2d 126 (1996); Canron, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 82 Wash.App. 480, 485, 918 P.2d 937 (1996); Pulse v. Northwest Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 18 Wash.App. 59, 61, 566 P.2d 577 (1977). Washington courts also have recognized that the state in which the hazardous waste site is located has a comp......
-
Liability Insurance: Notice-prejudice After Friedland - May 2006 - Tort and Insurance Law
...and witness statements and was able to participate in motions practice and settlement). 52. See Pulse v. Northwest Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 566 P.2d 577, 579 (Wash.App. 1977), quoted in Friedland, supra note 4 at 648-49: [I]t is highly questionable whether [insurer's counsel] could have been m......