Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Glass V. Stahl Specialty Company: Reconciling Third Party's Contribution Rights With Employer's Immunity Under Workers' Compensation, Karin Nyrop
Seattle University Law Review
This note argues that the correct resolution of the tension between the employer’s immunity and the third party’s right of contribution requires balancing the interests of all parties. The employer has an interest in retaining the workers’ compensation law’s exclusive no-fault recovery system; the third party tortfeasor seeks to avoid shouldering the entire liability of another at-fault tortfeasor capable of contribution. At the same time, the employee has a right to full and speedy compensation, and the state has an interest in maintaining the financial stability of its accident fund. This note explores the policies and legal arguments supporting the …
Successor Liability In Washington: When A Successor Should Be Liable For A Predecessor's Products Liability—Meisel V. M & N Modern Hydraulic Press Company, Robert C. Manlowe
Successor Liability In Washington: When A Successor Should Be Liable For A Predecessor's Products Liability—Meisel V. M & N Modern Hydraulic Press Company, Robert C. Manlowe
Seattle University Law Review
This note examines the problem of products liability in the context of modern corporate practice. First, this note addresses products liability doctrine and its underlying rationale. Next, the note focuses on the conflict between the policies underlying the products liability doctrine and the traditional successor liability rules. Finally, this note examines the manner in which the modern rule resolves this inherent conflict and Meisel’s effect on that rule, concluding that the Washington courts should adopt the modern rule without limitations.
Manifestation: The Least Defensible Insurance Coverage Theory For Asbestos-Related Disease Suits, Pamela J. Layton
Manifestation: The Least Defensible Insurance Coverage Theory For Asbestos-Related Disease Suits, Pamela J. Layton
Seattle University Law Review
This Note first explains the nature of asbestos diseases, the standard insurance policy language, and the theories of insurance coverage. It then demonstrates the misapplications of medical evidence and contract interpretation principles in Eagle-Picher Industries Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and concludes with a discussion of the wider implications of the decision and the better theory suggested by Judge Wald. Because the facts and issues involved in Insurance Company of North America v. Forty-Eight Insulations, Keene Corp. v. Insurance Company of North America, and Eagle-Picher are essentially the same, the conclusions drawn from Eagle-Picher apply equally …
Mutual Of Enumclaw Insurance Company V. Wiscomb: Excluding The Family Exclusion Clause, Janice L. Campton
Mutual Of Enumclaw Insurance Company V. Wiscomb: Excluding The Family Exclusion Clause, Janice L. Campton
Seattle University Law Review
This note examines Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company v. Wiscomb. The note supports the court’s decision to prohibit unbargained for family exclusion clauses, because it furthered the policies exemplified in the Financial Responsibility Law and the Underinsured Motorist Statute and acted consistently with its decision abrogating intrafamily tort immunity. However, the note argues that by suggesting it would uphold truly bargained for family exclusion clauses denying coverage to named insureds, the court ignored its own pronouncement declaring such clauses against this state’s policy of assuring compensation for the protection of innocent victims of negligent motorists.