known loss doctrine in Washington

2023Under the known loss defense, courts “must determine whether a particular occurrence was expected by the insured before the insurance coverage was obtained.” Id.

2016Klickitat, 124 Wn.2d at 805 .

2003State Farm asserts that “a jury could conclude from the evidence in the record that Ellis Court actually knew or, at the very least, should have known at some point before July 14, 1997, that the water intrusion problems and resulting damage in the building were significant enough that a reasonable person would have concluded that collapse would be likely to occur if the building [were] not repaired.” Ellis Court maintains that under Panorama Village Condominium Owners Association Board of Directors v. Allstate Insurance Co., 144 Wn.2d 130, 140-41 , 26 P.3d 910 (2001), because its policy did n

2003Co., 144 Wash.2d 130, 140-41 , 26 P.3d 910 (2001), because its policy did not state otherwise, "hidden" means "concealed" or "out of sight," and the known loss defense is thus precluded.

2003State Farm asserts that “a jury could conclude from the evidence in the record that Ellis Court actually knew or, at the very least, should have known at some point before July 14, 1997, that the water intrusion problems and resulting damage in the building were significant enough that a reasonable person would have concluded that collapse would be likely to occur if the building [were] not repaired.” Ellis Court maintains that under Panorama Village Condominium Owners Association Board of Directors v. Allstate Insurance Co., 144 Wn.2d 130, 140-41 , 26 P.3d 910 (2001), because its policy did n

2003Co., 144 Wash.2d 130, 140-41 , 26 P.3d 910 (2001), because its policy did not state otherwise, "hidden" means "concealed" or "out of sight," and the known loss defense is thus precluded.

2000Co., 732 A.2d 1236 (Pa.Super.1999), the court noted first the known loss doctrine was a matter of first impression in Pennsylvania, and thus the court had to decide whether to construe it narrowly or broadly.

2000Id. at 1256-57 .

2016Co., 117 Wn.2d 37 , 811 P.2d 673 (1991). 3 No. 46654-6-II improperly instructing the jury on late notice prejudice; (3) ruling as matter of law that the known loss principle did not preclude coverage for the TWP site; (4) denying its motions for judgment as a matter of law on the occurrence requirement because the Port did not present sufficient evidence that it did not expect or intend groundwater contamination; (5) denying its motions for judgment as a matter of law on the qualified pollution exclusion because the Port did not present sufficient evidence that it did not expect or intend the

2016Co., 117 Wn.2d 37 , 811 P.2d 673 (1991). 3 No. 46654-6-II improperly instructing the jury on late notice prejudice; (3) ruling as matter of law that the known loss principle did not preclude coverage for the TWP site; (4) denying its motions for judgment as a matter of law on the occurrence requirement because the Port did not present sufficient evidence that it did not expect or intend groundwater contamination; (5) denying its motions for judgment as a matter of law on the qualified pollution exclusion because the Port did not present sufficient evidence that it did not expect or intend the

2016Co. of Am. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 140 Wn.2d 517, 556, 562 , 998 P.2d 856 (2000) [hereinafter ALCOA].14 Application of the known loss principle generally presents a question of fact.

2000Co., 205 Cal.App.3d 530, 535 , 252 Cal.Rptr. 565 (1988)). [14] Whether to extend the discovery rule to the circumstances of a particular case is a "judicial policy determination." Gazija v. Nicholas Jems Co., 86 Wash.2d 215, 221 , 543 P.2d 338 (1975). [15] See Dorsey v. Speelman, 1 Wash.App. 85 , 459 P.2d 416 (1969). [16] 133 Wash.2d 751, 766 , 948 P.2d 796 (1997). [17] The trial court did think these facts were relevant to the known loss doctrine, which precludes insurance coverage for damage the insured was aware of when it purchased insurance coverage.

2000Co., 205 Cal.App.3d 530, 535 , 252 Cal.Rptr. 565 (1988)). [14] Whether to extend the discovery rule to the circumstances of a particular case is a "judicial policy determination." Gazija v. Nicholas Jems Co., 86 Wash.2d 215, 221 , 543 P.2d 338 (1975). [15] See Dorsey v. Speelman, 1 Wash.App. 85 , 459 P.2d 416 (1969). [16] 133 Wash.2d 751, 766 , 948 P.2d 796 (1997). [17] The trial court did think these facts were relevant to the known loss doctrine, which precludes insurance coverage for damage the insured was aware of when it purchased insurance coverage.

2000Co., 205 Cal.App.3d 530, 535 , 252 Cal.Rptr. 565 (1988)). [14] Whether to extend the discovery rule to the circumstances of a particular case is a "judicial policy determination." Gazija v. Nicholas Jems Co., 86 Wash.2d 215, 221 , 543 P.2d 338 (1975). [15] See Dorsey v. Speelman, 1 Wash.App. 85 , 459 P.2d 416 (1969). [16] 133 Wash.2d 751, 766 , 948 P.2d 796 (1997). [17] The trial court did think these facts were relevant to the known loss doctrine, which precludes insurance coverage for damage the insured was aware of when it purchased insurance coverage.

2000Co., 205 Cal.App.3d 530, 535 , 252 Cal.Rptr. 565 (1988)). [14] Whether to extend the discovery rule to the circumstances of a particular case is a "judicial policy determination." Gazija v. Nicholas Jems Co., 86 Wash.2d 215, 221 , 543 P.2d 338 (1975). [15] See Dorsey v. Speelman, 1 Wash.App. 85 , 459 P.2d 416 (1969). [16] 133 Wash.2d 751, 766 , 948 P.2d 796 (1997). [17] The trial court did think these facts were relevant to the known loss doctrine, which precludes insurance coverage for damage the insured was aware of when it purchased insurance coverage.

2000Co., 205 Cal.App.3d 530, 535 , 252 Cal.Rptr. 565 (1988)). [14] Whether to extend the discovery rule to the circumstances of a particular case is a "judicial policy determination." Gazija v. Nicholas Jems Co., 86 Wash.2d 215, 221 , 543 P.2d 338 (1975). [15] See Dorsey v. Speelman, 1 Wash.App. 85 , 459 P.2d 416 (1969). [16] 133 Wash.2d 751, 766 , 948 P.2d 796 (1997). [17] The trial court did think these facts were relevant to the known loss doctrine, which precludes insurance coverage for damage the insured was aware of when it purchased insurance coverage.

2000Co., 205 Cal.App.3d 530, 535 , 252 Cal.Rptr. 565 (1988)). [14] Whether to extend the discovery rule to the circumstances of a particular case is a "judicial policy determination." Gazija v. Nicholas Jems Co., 86 Wash.2d 215, 221 , 543 P.2d 338 (1975). [15] See Dorsey v. Speelman, 1 Wash.App. 85 , 459 P.2d 416 (1969). [16] 133 Wash.2d 751, 766 , 948 P.2d 796 (1997). [17] The trial court did think these facts were relevant to the known loss doctrine, which precludes insurance coverage for damage the insured was aware of when it purchased insurance coverage.

2000Co., 205 Cal.App.3d 530, 535 , 252 Cal.Rptr. 565 (1988)). [14] Whether to extend the discovery rule to the circumstances of a particular case is a "judicial policy determination." Gazija v. Nicholas Jems Co., 86 Wash.2d 215, 221 , 543 P.2d 338 (1975). [15] See Dorsey v. Speelman, 1 Wash.App. 85 , 459 P.2d 416 (1969). [16] 133 Wash.2d 751, 766 , 948 P.2d 796 (1997). [17] The trial court did think these facts were relevant to the known loss doctrine, which precludes insurance coverage for damage the insured was aware of when it purchased insurance coverage.

2000Co., 205 Cal.App.3d 530, 535 , 252 Cal.Rptr. 565 (1988)). [14] Whether to extend the discovery rule to the circumstances of a particular case is a "judicial policy determination." Gazija v. Nicholas Jems Co., 86 Wash.2d 215, 221 , 543 P.2d 338 (1975). [15] See Dorsey v. Speelman, 1 Wash.App. 85 , 459 P.2d 416 (1969). [16] 133 Wash.2d 751, 766 , 948 P.2d 796 (1997). [17] The trial court did think these facts were relevant to the known loss doctrine, which precludes insurance coverage for damage the insured was aware of when it purchased insurance coverage.