Issue Did Firemans Fund Insurance Co have a responsibility to defend Woo under

Issue did firemans fund insurance co have a

This preview shows page 3 out of 3 pages.

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.
Image of page 3

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 3 pages?

  • Spring '14
  • Curtis,MichaelH._J.
  • Business, Case Brief, Irac Format, Valero V Florida Insurance Ga, Woo V Fireman's Fund, Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture