§Why CasetextPricing

Cypress Insurance Company v. SK Hynix America, Inc.

RESPONSE

9 Cited authorities

  1. Owners v. Plateau

    139 Wn. App. 743 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 82 times
    Holding that an insurance company could be subject to suit if it refused to provide coverage simply because the entity name differed from that on the policy, and the principal officer did business under several different, related names

  2. U.S. v. W.R. Grace

    504 F.3d 745 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 75 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the fact that a study is associational — rather than an epidemiological study intended to show causation — does not bar it from being used to inform an expert's opinion about the dangers of asbestos releases"

  3. Morgan v. Prudential Ins. Co.

    86 Wn. 2d 432 (Wash. 1976)   Cited 158 times
    Holding that "loss by severance" was ambiguous and that a substantial severance could satisfy a policy when there was functional loss as if the limb had been severed completely from the body

  4. U.S. v. Mende

    43 F.3d 1298 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 87 times
    Holding that where testimony is probative, any resultant prejudice is minimized by a limiting instruction

  5. Newcomer v. Masini

    45 Wn. App. 284 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 37 times

    No. 7040-9-III. September 4, 1986. [1] Appeal and Error — Review — Issues First Raised in Motion for Reconsideration. An issue which is not dependent upon new facts may be raised for the first time and preserved for appellate review by means of a motion for reconsideration addressed to the trial court. [2] Limitation of Actions — Subrogation — Third Party Claim — Timeliness. The filing of a third party claim within the time limit applicable to the original action is sufficient to preserve a subrogation

  6. Wong v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1

    CASE NO. C16-1774 RAJ (W.D. Wash. Sep. 27, 2018)

    CASE NO. C16-1774 RAJ 09-27-2018 JENNIFER and EUGENE WONG, Plaintiffs, v. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Defendant. HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the parties' Motions in limine. Dkt. ## 47, 49. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motions, and RESERVES RULING on a number of motions for trial. I. BACKGROUND This case arises from Defendant's treatment of Plaintiffs' child, J.W., who is a student with disabilities. See generally Dkt. # 9 (First Amended

  7. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co. v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

    CASE NO. C18-987-MJP (W.D. Wash. Sep. 20, 2018)

    CASE NO. C18-987-MJP 09-20-2018 OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC. and PILCHUCK CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendants. Marsha J. Pechman United States District Judge ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REMAND THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Ohio Security Insurance Company's Motion for Remand. (Dkt. No. 7.) Having reviewed the Motion, the Response (Dkt. No. 11), the Reply (Dkt. No. 19) and the related record, and having reviewed the parties Joint Response to its Order

  8. Clow v. National Indemnity Co.

    54 Wn. 2d 198 (Wash. 1959)   Cited 28 times

    No. 34693. May 14, 1959. INSURANCE — PAYMENT OR DISCHARGE — LOAN AGREEMENTS. Courts will give effect to "loan agreements" between an insured and an insurer, whereby the insurer pays the amount of a loss sustained by the insured to the insured upon the understanding that the insured will prosecute an action for damages and repay to the insurer only such sum as might be recovered in the action, if the facts show that an actual loan was intended, even though the obligation to repay the loan is contingent

  9. Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

    Fed. R. Evid. 403   Cited 22,498 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks