THE ADVOCATE V O L . 7 5 P A R T 3 M A Y 2 0 1 7 453 Dear Sir, Re: Legal Anecdotes and Miscellanea (2017) 75 Advocate 297 I have just finished reading the recent Advocate—very good, as always—and your Miscellanea section reminded me of the two passages below: … Ms. Bunch’s theory does not make logical sense. Beneath the rhetoric, Ms. Bunch’s theory amounts to an assertion that because one exclusion does not deny coverage, coverage must exist because the other exclusion does not apply … This is like saying that if a person is shot two times and only one of those shots causes fatal damage, the person will live. In Washington, exclusions in insurance contracts work like shots fired from a gun: each must be analyzed independently to determine if a fatal blow has been delivered. Bunch v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company Dist. Court, W.D. Washington, 2014 … Mr. Brown agreed before me on this application to refrain from in any way influencing Ben Mr. Brown’s son or permitting anyone else to influence Ben against a belief in Santa Claus and in the tooth fairy. He will abide by that commitment.* Brown v. Long, 2014 BCSC 2521 at para. 12 (in Chambers) *In the resulting order, would this be an “anti-anti-Claus clause”? Paul Dawson Vancouver LETTER TO THE EDITOR By R.C. Tino Bella* * Letters to the editor may be e-mailed to firstname.lastname@example.org.
May Advocate 2017
To see the actual publication please follow the link above