6 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Monsanto Co. v. C.E. Heath Compensation & Liability Insurancegreen2 sentences1998Co., 652 A.2d 30, 35 (1994) ("The majority of courts have held that without a pro rata clause in the policies, the insurance companies cannot limit their obligations to a pro rata share or portion of [the insured's] liabilities"). 1998Co., 652 A.2d 30, 35 (Del. 1994) (“The majority of courts have held that without a pro rata clause in the policies, the insurance companies cannot limit their obligations to a pro rata share or portion of [the insured’s] liabilities”). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Federated American Insurance
green
2 sentences2011The Supreme Court held the clauses were mutually repugnant and explained that Safeco stood for the proposition that an “excess” clause would be enforced over a “pro rata” clause because according to its terms the policy with the pro rata clause “became effective prior to the policy of ‘excess insurance.’ ” Federated, 76 Wn.2d at 251 . 2011Indem. v. Federated, 76 Wash.2d at 251 , 456 P.2d 331 (emphasis added.) The Court stated that when both clauses contain language making each policy excess, "[t]here is no reason to give absolute effect to a provision in one policy while ignoring a similar provision in the other. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Miller v. Allstate Insurance
green
2 sentences1994Co., 66 Wn.2d 871, 876-77 , 405 P.2d 712 (1965) was whether a pro rata clause constituted other "similar insurance” so as to effectuate an escape clause in the context of uninsured motorist coverage. 1994Co., 66 Wn.2d 871, 876-77 , 405 P.2d 712 (1965) was whether a pro rata clause constituted other "similar insurance” so as to effectuate an escape clause in the context of uninsured motorist coverage. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Burcham v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
green
1 sentence1965Exch., 255 Iowa 69, 75 , 121 N.W. *877 2d 500 (1963), lends support to the defendant in the instant case, through the following statement: Though the reasoning may be criticized as circular and arbitrary, we believe the better rule is that where the insurance companies would be both liable except for the other, the excess-escape-clause policy should be held to be not other similar insurance to the policy containing the pro rata clause; conversely, the policy with only its pro rata clause applicable is regarded as other similar insurance as used in the excess-escape policy. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.