Genzyme Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co.

Explaining that, in reviewing a 12(b) motion, a district court "must assume the truth of all well-plead[ed] facts and give the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom"

Level 3 Communications v. Federal Ins. Co.

Holding that "[a]n insured incurs no loss within the meaning of the insurance contract by being compelled to return property that it had stolen, even if a more polite word than 'stolen' is used to characterize the claim for the property's return," reasoning that such relief "is restitutionary in character" because "it seeks to deprive the defendant of the net benefit of the unlawful act"

Am. Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Steen

Applying RCW 48.18.320 to an insurance policy

Mut. of Enumclaw v. TG Constr

Holding that a good faith settlement which has been reviewed and found reasonable by a judge establishes the insured's presumptive damages even if the insurer does not decline coverage in bad faith

Stuart v. American States Ins. Co.

Holding that attorney fees abide remand outcome

Holden v. Farmers Ins. Co.

Concerning a policy that defined ACV to include fair market value, which the court determined to include replacement cost under Washington law

In re Feature Realty Litigation

Virginia Mason Med. v. Executive Risk

Holding that that a Washington Consumer Protection Act claim brought against the plaintiff medical center in an underlying suit "did not seek to prevent unjust enrichment or to deprive [plaintiff] of the ‘net benefit’ of its allegedly wrongful act"; rather, the settlement "was calculated by determining the individual harm suffered by each plaintiff" in that suit, and "not by assessing [plaintiff's] gain"

Virginia Mason Med. Ctr. v. Executive Risk Indemnity

Holding that the underlying suit "did not seek to prevent unjust enrichment or to deprive [defendant] of the 'net benefit' of its allegedly wrongful act" but rather the underlying settlement "was calculated by determining the individual harm suffered by each plaintiff"

Mark Andy, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance

In Mark Andy, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 233 F.3d 1090, modifying 229 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2000), the policy did not unambiguously subject all losses caused by a flood, including business interruption and extra expense losses, to the flood sublimit, as the Preamble and the Flood Coverage Section do in this case.

Section 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission

Providing court-ordered monetary penalties against anyone who engages in conduct previously identified as prohibited in a final cease and desist order, but only if the violator acted with "actual knowledge that such act or practice is unfair or deceptive"