Taxicab Motor Co. v. Pacific Coast Casualty Co.
Citations
- 73 Wash. 631
- 132 P. 393
- 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1651
Syllabus
<p>Insurance — Indemnity — Satisfaction of Judgment — Payment by Note — Good Faith. The payment of a judgment by giving a promissory note for the amount due sufficiently shows “a loss actually sustained and paid in satisfaction of a final judgment” within the meaning of a clause in a policy of indemnity insurance, where there is nothing to show bad faith, and such settlement was approved by the probate court.</p> <p>Same — Payment of Judgment — Time for Payment — Appeal. A judgment paid within ninety days from the date of its affirmance by the supreme court is paid “within ninety days from the date” of final judgment “and after trial of the issue” within the meaning of a clause in a policy of indemnity insurance requiring such payment, by the assured; especially where the insurance company prosecuted the appeal under another clause in the policy granting it such right.</p> <p>Evidence — Policy of Indemnity — Parol Evidence — Exemptions. A policy of indemnity insurance given to protect a taxicab company from liability for ■ accidents to any persons caused by its taxicabs, limiting the liability of the company in elaborate and minute details, cannot be added to by parol to exempt the company from liability in case the cars were driven in any city street in excess of the city speed limit, the policy containing no such exemption.</p> <p>Insurance — Indemnity—Validity—Public Policy — Violation of Statute by Servants. A policy of indemnity insurance is not void as against public policy, in that it indemnifies against loss sustained in consequence of the violation of a statute fixing the speed limit for automobiles; since it may indemnify against such acts committed by servants if not directed or participated in by the assured.</p> <p>Same — Indemnity—Actions—Defenses—Assumption of Defense by Insurer. An indemnity company after having assumed the defense of the action against the assured for wrongful death in which judgment went against the assured, cannot defend an action
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- restoration awards from violation of statutory offense of unfair methods of competition in injunctive action by state attorney general not damages within meaning of insurance policy
- “The Attorney General’s responsibility in bringing cases of this kind is to protect the public from the kinds of business practices which are prohibited by the statute; it is not to seek redress for private individuals.”
- “The Attorney General’s responsibility in bringing cases [pursuant to RCW 19.86.080] is to protect the public .... Where relief is provided for private individuals by way of restitution, it is only incidental to and in aid of the relief asked on behalf of the public.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Fullerton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.