Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Citation
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Parent Document
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Effective Date
- 2011-11-18
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4950936/hawkins-v-diel/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (37)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
Full Text
609 chars¶13 Kubista is distinguishable. In Kubista, the plaintiff sought to introduce evidence of insurance that was directly relevant to estop the defendant from asserting its defense. Kubista, 87 Wn.2d at 67. Here, DMC attempts to point to the Diels’ insurance carrier’s delay to avoid its own contractual responsibility. This evidence is simply not relevant to the duty DMC owed to the Hawkinses. The Diels admitted liability; accordingly, DMC has recourse to recover from them in a separate action. Evidence of the Diels’ liability insurance had no relevance to any issue in dispute between the Hawkinses and DMC.