VISION ONE v. PHILADELPHIA INDEM. INS. CO.

No. 85350-9.

276 P.3d 300 (2012)

174 Wn.2d 501

VISION ONE, LLC; and Vision Tacoma, Inc., Petitioners, v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, and RSUI, Respondents, and D & D Construction, Inc., Respondent. D & D Construction, Inc., Respondent, v. Berg Equipment and Scaffolding Co., INC., Respondent. Matthew Thompson, Respondent, v. D & D, Inc., a Washington corporation; Berg Equipment and Scaffolding Co., Inc., a Washington corporation, Respondents, Vision One, LLC, a Washington limited liability corporation; and Vision Tacoma, Inc., a Washington corporation, Petitioners.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Decided May 17, 2012.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jerry Bruce Edmonds , Daniel W. Ferm , Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC, Seattle, WA, Teena M. Killian , Teena M. Killian, LLC, Eugene, OR, for Petitioners.

Thomas Dean Adams , Celeste Mountain Monroe , Jose Dino Vasquez , Karr Tuttle Campbell, Michael David Helgren , Barbara Himes Schuknecht , David Andrew Linehan , McNaul Ebel Nawrot & Helgren, PLLC, Tracy A. Duany , Daniel F. Mullin , Mullin Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA, Kenneth Wendell Masters , Shelby R. Frost Lemmel , Masters Law Group PLLC, Bainbridge Island, WA, Dennis J. Perkins , Attorney at Law, Bellevue, WA, D. Michael Shipley , Shipley Law Office, Tacoma, WA, for Respondents.

Joseph E. Lynam , Lane Powell PC, Abraham K. Lorber , Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, amicus counsel for Building Owners and Managers Association.

John Stephen Riper , Ashbaugh Beal LLP, John P. Ahlers , Ahlers & Cressman PLLC, Seattle, WA, amicus counsel for Construction Contractor Industry, Associated General Contractors of Washington, National Electrical Contractors Association, National Utility Contractors Association of Washington, Mechanical Contractor's Association of Western Washington, Associated Builders & Contractors of Western Washington.


STEPHENS, J.

¶ 1 This case involves the proper interpretation of a "resulting loss" clause in an all-risk insurance policy. It also provides an opportunity to clarify application of the efficient proximate cause rule. The Court of Appeals overturned a jury verdict in favor of the insured, reasoning that the resulting loss clause did not apply in the absence of a secondary covered peril that proximately caused the loss. The court remanded for a jury determination...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases