Opinion ID: 2509079
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Application to Steen

Text: ACIC argues that under a claims-made policy the statutory occurrence does not occur until notice of loss has been given to the insurer. While that may be a fair reading of the insurance contract, it is irreconcilable with the language of the statute. The plain language of the statute focuses on events for which the insured is legally liable; it says nothing about events for which the insurer is contractually liable. The statute forbids retroactive annulment after the occurrence of the peril insured against. We have no grounds to suspend operation of the statute until after the contractual trigger of the insurer's obligations. Cf. 2 LEE R. RUSS & THOMAS F. SEGALLA, COUCH ON INSURANCE § 30:8 (3d ed.1995); Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Hirschmann, 112 Wash.2d 621, 627, 773 P.2d 413 (1989). As this court has long held, [w]hen the words in a statute are clear and unequivocal, this court must apply the statute as written. State v. Michielli, 132 Wash.2d 229, 237, 937 P.2d 587 (1997); see also State v. Carey, 4 Wash. 424, 428-29, 30 P. 729 (1892) (citing THOMAS M. COOLEY, A TREATISE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS WHICH REST UPON THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION 745 (5th ed. 1883)). The insurer raises arguments that application of the statute may confound the use of claims-made insurance policies. However, if special treatment of claims-made policies is desirous, the required action is legislative, not judicial. [W]e must enforce the statute as written. Duke v. Boyd, 133 Wash.2d 80, 88, 942 P.2d 351 (1997). Here, the alleged acts of negligence committed by the hospital occurred between September 10, 1998 and October 1, 1998, and were occurrences within the coverage of the ACIC policies. [4] Moreover, no one argues the insured, NAHC, may not be liable. The insured and insurer came together and agreed to cancel the policies effective August 1, 2000, which is after the occurrences allegedly leading to Steven Steen's death. Therefore, the agreement to cancel the policies in this instance is a prohibited retroactive annulment and void as to perils insured against that occurred before the cancellation agreement was made under RCW 48.18.320. [5] Accordingly, we answer the first certified question in the affirmative.