Issue did firemans fund insurance co have a

Issue: Did Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. have a responsibility to defend Woo under
the professional liability provision of his policy?
Rule: Yes. The Supreme Court of Washington reversed the lower court’s decision.
Application: This “joke” falls under that provision since the policy defines accident as a
circumstance, event, or happening neither expected nor intended from the viewpoint of
the insured. It also covers injury caused by inadvertent or mistaken business activity
giving rise to personal injury. Woo did not intend the joke to result in tort injuries, so it is
an accident covered by the policy. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co’s refusal to defend can
be considered bad faith and therefore justifies the jury verdict.
Conclusion: However unprofessional Woo’s conduct may have seem, the joke was
done during a dental procedure and thus, the performance of procedures is covered by
the general liability policy, which covers accidents — impractical jokes being considered
such an event.