Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Winters v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen2 sentences2010See Hamm, 151 Wash.2d at 310-11 , 88 P.3d 395 (" Winters clarified that the pro rata sharing rule articulated in Mahler is based on equitable principles, not specific policy language." (citing Winters, 144 Wash.2d at 878-79 , 31 P.3d 1164 , 63 P.3d 764 )). [5] Although, unlike in Young , Safeco's PIP policy defines Weismann as an "insured" rather than as a third party beneficiary, this is not a meaningful distinction because Weismann, like Young, was not a party to the tortfeasor's insurance contract and received benefits from the PIP policy because the tortfeasor had contracted with her insur 2010See Hamm, 151 Wn.2d at 310-11 (“Winters clarified that the pro rata sharing rule articulated in Mahler is based on equitable principles, not specific policy language.” (citing Winters, 144 Wn.2d at 878-79 )). | 4 | 5 |
Hamm v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen2 sentences2010See Hamm, 151 Wash.2d at 310-11 , 88 P.3d 395 (" Winters clarified that the pro rata sharing rule articulated in Mahler is based on equitable principles, not specific policy language." (citing Winters, 144 Wash.2d at 878-79 , 31 P.3d 1164 , 63 P.3d 764 )). [5] Although, unlike in Young , Safeco's PIP policy defines Weismann as an "insured" rather than as a third party beneficiary, this is not a meaningful distinction because Weismann, like Young, was not a party to the tortfeasor's insurance contract and received benefits from the PIP policy because the tortfeasor had contracted with her insur 2010See Hamm, 151 Wn.2d at 310-11 (“Winters clarified that the pro rata sharing rule articulated in Mahler is based on equitable principles, not specific policy language.” (citing Winters, 144 Wn.2d at 878-79 )). | 2 | 3 |
Winters v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.green2 sentences2010See Hamm, 151 Wash.2d at 310-11 , 88 P.3d 395 (" Winters clarified that the pro rata sharing rule articulated in Mahler is based on equitable principles, not specific policy language." (citing Winters, 144 Wash.2d at 878-79 , 31 P.3d 1164 , 63 P.3d 764 )). [5] Although, unlike in Young , Safeco's PIP policy defines Weismann as an "insured" rather than as a third party beneficiary, this is not a meaningful distinction because Weismann, like Young, was not a party to the tortfeasor's insurance contract and received benefits from the PIP policy because the tortfeasor had contracted with her insur 2004Winters, 144 Wash.2d at 883 , 31 P.3d 1164 . | 1 | 3 |
Hamm v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.green1 sentence2010See Hamm, 151 Wash.2d at 310-11 , 88 P.3d 395 (" Winters clarified that the pro rata sharing rule articulated in Mahler is based on equitable principles, not specific policy language." (citing Winters, 144 Wash.2d at 878-79 , 31 P.3d 1164 , 63 P.3d 764 )). [5] Although, unlike in Young , Safeco's PIP policy defines Weismann as an "insured" rather than as a third party beneficiary, this is not a meaningful distinction because Weismann, like Young, was not a party to the tortfeasor's insurance contract and received benefits from the PIP policy because the tortfeasor had contracted with her insur | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.