# Queen City Farms, Inc. v. Central Nat'l Ins. Co. of Omaha

> Washington Supreme Court · July 20, 1995 · 126 Wash. 2d 50

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9855180

## Case

- **Full name:** Queen City Farms, Inc., Respondent, v. the Central National Insurance Company of Omaha, Et Al, Petitioners
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 20, 1995
- **Citations:** 126 Wash. 2d 50; 882 P.2d 703
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Andersen
- **Judges:** Brachtenbach, Andersen, Utter, Guy, Madsen
- **Cited by:** 294 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9855180

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding, prior to Woo, a subjective standard applied where an insurance policy provided that an occurrence was covered ‘“which unexpectedly and unintentionally’” resulted in damage, and distinguishing cases in which cpurts relied on common law definitions of “accident”
- recognizing that sometimes language in standard policies does not involve mutual negotiations between the insurers and the insureds
- holding that a party does not need to object to factual distinctions in a special verdict form when the “issue was resolved on a summary motion brought before trial” and the trial court declined to reconsider its summary judgment ruling
- concluding that “these exclusions are ambiguous, and therefore should be construed against the drafter-insurer, to mean that if the polluting event is unexpected and unintended, coverage is provided”
- recognizing that questions of expectation in this context “may be said to involve state of mind, but that does not resolve the inquiry whose state of mind—the insured’s or a reasonable person’s”

## Opinion text

Andersen, C.J.
(concurring and dissenting) — I concur with the result and the reasoning of all of the issues in Justice Brachtenbach’s majority opinion with the exception of the material misrepresentation issue. With respect to that issue, I agree with Justice Utter’s dissenting opinion that evidence was presented from which the jury reasonably *106 could have found a material misrepresentation and that we should respect the jury’s finding of fact on that issue.
[Dissent amended by orders of the Supreme Court March 22 and July 20, 1995.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9855180. Public record. Not legal advice.