Photo of Charles Gussow

Charles Gussow has experience in consumer protection law, administrative law, appellate litigation and federal practice. Before joining Stoel Rives, Charles was a law clerk for the Honorable Betty Fletcher of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2012-2013).

In Expedia, Inc. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., the Washington Supreme Court unanimously held that insurers that promise to defend an insured party from lawsuits must pay for the cost of defense as soon as the duty is triggered, regardless of whether the insurer has a defense that might ultimately relieve it of this duty.   An insured party is therefore entitled to payment by the insurance company of the cost of defending lawsuits from the time the duty to defend is triggered until a court declares that the insurance company has no duty to defend.


Continue Reading In Washington, Insurers Must Defend Until They Are Excused

Article by Manmeet Dhami, Summer Associate and law student at University of Washington School of Law

[Learn more about Stoel Rives’ summer program here]

According to a recent Washington Supreme Court decision, providing false information to a Sound Transit fare enforcement officer (FEO) is not punishable under Washington law. Typically, making a false or misleading statement to a public servant is considered a misdemeanor.  However, in State of Washington v. K.L.B., the Washington Supreme Court found that individuals cannot be held liable for false statements made to an FEO because FEOs are not public servants.


Continue Reading Lying Isn’t Nice, But It’s Not Necessarily a Crime

Article by Sook Kim, Summer Associate and law student at University of Washington School of Law

[Learn more about Stoel Rives’ summer program here]

In BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Fulbright, the Washington Supreme Court held that a lien for future payments takes effect when the lien is recorded, regardless of whether the future payments are due at the time of recording. As a result, the lien takes priority over all subsequent liens on the same property.


Continue Reading Condo Shoppers – Beware of Lurking Liens

In State v. Coley, the Washington Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that defendants bear the burden of proof for establishing they are incompetent to stand trial after they complete therapeutic treatment designed to restore them to competency.  While the right to be competent during a criminal trial is grounded in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Court primarily looked to Washington’s codification of that right at RCW Chapter 10.77.  The Court found that legislature intended that the burden of proof fall on the party seeking to establish incompetency at all stages of trial, even after a prior finding of incompetency.
Continue Reading You’re All Better Now: Courts Will Presume Defendants Are Competent After Treatment

In State v. Jordan, a unanimous Washington Supreme Court ruled that a trial court properly increased a defendant’s prison sentence because he had been previously convicted of manslaughter in Texas, even though Washington has more forgiving self-defense laws than Texas.   The court held that sentencing judges may properly consider the fact that a defendant

In In re Detention of Morgan, a schizophrenic pedophile petitioned the Washington Supreme Court to reverse a civil commitment order.  The court declined to do so.

To reach this unsurprising result, the Supreme Court had to determine that it was acceptable for the detained person to be found a sexually violent predator and deprived of liberty after he had been found incompetent to stand trial.  The court justified this determination by holding that full due process rights do not apply to determinations of sexually violent predators, given the compelling interest in protecting society. While few people will be upset by this result, the reasoning underlying the ruling is potentially troubling.Continue Reading Freedom is like a social security check: it can be taken away without full due process rights

In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of Gomez, the Washington Supreme Court rejected a collateral attack on a mother’s conviction for killing her child through abuse. The Court ruled that the Spanish-speaking client did not deserve a new trial even though her lawyer only spoke English and also represented the child’s father in a dependency proceeding. Perhaps lost in translation or clouded by the lawyer’s conflicting duties to the father was the fact that the mother may not have abused the child and that the child might have died because he suffered epilepsy. Finality trumped process in this case and may have kept an innocent person in prison.


Continue Reading No comprende? No problema. Washington’s Supreme Court accepts poor performance by defense lawyer who didn’t speak the same language as his client