Senn v. Northwest Underwriters, Inc.
Washington Court of Appeals
74 Wash. App. 408, 875 P.2d 637 (1994)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
Mary Ann Cimoch (Mary Ann) (defendant) and her husband, Norman Cimoch (Norman) (defendant) served as directors of automobile insurer Consumers Indemnity Company (Consumers), which operated through its agent and administrator Northwest Underwriters, Inc. (Northwest) (defendant). Norman also served as Consumers’ president and chairman. Additionally, the Cimochs co-owned the corporation that was the sole shareholder of Consumers’ and Northwest’s stocks, Cimoch, Inc. Norman began illegally diverting large amounts of Consumers’ funds for himself. Although Consumers was intended to receive about $300 for every warranty contract, it began receiving only $20. Additionally, although Consumers was intended to receive a total of $30.3 million from automobile dealers buying insurance plans, it received only $18 million. Consumers went into receivership. The receiver sued the Cimochs for Consumers’ losses. Mary Ann tried to relieve herself of liability by claiming she was ignorant to the diversions. However, the trial court granted summary judgment in the receiver’s favor, against Mary Ann. The trial court concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Mary Ann was the proximate cause of Consumers’ losses and therefore liable for damages. The matter was appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Agid, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
