Jami Hunting v. Am. Family Mutual Ins. Co.

DISCUSSION

The parties are familiar with the facts, so we need not restate them here other

than to state that Ms. Hunting sought to recover for damage to a rental property

insured under a businessowners policy. On appeal, Ms. Hunting contends that the

district court erred: (1) in rejecting her breach of contract claim because American

Family should be estopped from asserting a contractual time limitation defense; (2)

in overlooking evidence that American Family acted in bad faith and violated the

Washington CPA by characterizing the damage as “wear and tear” and “inadequate

. . . maintenance”; and (3) in striking the Declaration of Rob Berg who videotaped

the damage and expressed his opinion that the damage was intentional.

2 A. Equitable Estoppel

Ms. Hunting contends that the evidence supports her claim that American

Family should be estopped from asserting the policy’s time limitation period. The

elements an equitable estoppel defense are: “(1) an admission, statement, or act

inconsistent with the claim afterwards asserted, (2) action by the other party on the

faith of such admission, statement, or act, and (3) injury to such other party

resulting from…