Opinion ID: 1434255
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: prejudice to icbc

Text: Generally proof of prejudice to the insurer is a question of fact. Pulse v. Northwest Farm Bureau Insurance Co., 18 Wash. App. 59, 566 P.2d 577, 579 (1977). A summary judgment may only be granted if the proponent of the motion shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and also that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wickwire v. McFadden, 576 P.2d 986, 987 (Alaska 1978); Whaley v. State, 438 P.2d 718, 719 (Alaska 1968). The estate and ICBC argue that the summary judgment motion was properly granted since they proffered undisputed evidence of prejudice. Since WBI did not respond to the allegations of prejudice, ICBC claims that Alaska Civil Rule 56(e) supports the granting of the motion. [4] ICBC claims that it was prejudiced in three ways: 1) opportunities to investigate have been lost; 2) opportunities to negotiate and settle have been lost; and 3) opportunities to defend have been lost. Had ICBC met its initial burden of showing that there was no genuine issue of material fact, WBI's failure to respond with affidavits or other evidence would justify the summary judgment. However, ICBC did no more than to allege prejudice. It introduced no evidence in support of its claims. [5] For instance there was no evidence that ICBC customarily investigated or settled similar claims. [6] This case is very similar to that before the Washington court in Oregon Automobile Insurance Co. v. Salzberg, 85 Wash.2d 372, 535 P.2d 816 (1975). There, the court concluded that the summary judgment should not have been granted, since the respondent alleged that it incurred prejudice by Salzberg's actions, but there is nothing in the record supportive of this contention. Id. at 819. [7] Since ICBC did not meet its initial burden of showing that there were no genuine issues of material fact the summary judgment motion should have been denied regardless of whether WBI failed to respond to the motion with affidavits or other evidence. See Jacobsen v. State, 89 Wash.2d 104, 569 P.2d 1152, 1155 (1977). The judgment is REVERSED and REMANDED.