In Schmidt v. Coogan, the Washington Supreme Court addressed two questions of first impression, whether collectability of the underlying judgment is an element of the plaintiff’s claim for legal malpractice and whether emotional distress (ED) damages are recoverable in a malpractice action. The Court held that collectability is not an element of the plaintiff’s
Washington Appellate Practice
Mental Health Parity Act Mandates NDT Under Individual Plans
In O.S.T. v. Regence BlueShield, the Washington Supreme Court held that Regence’s exclusion of neurodevelopmental therapies (NDT) in individual policies violated the mental health parity act, RCW 48.44.341. The Court rejected Regence’s reliance on an earlier statute, RCW 48.44.450, which mandates NDT to children under seven in group plans only. The named plaintiffs were…
The Bracken Fix Upheld
In In re Estate of Hambleton, No. 89419-1 (consolidated with In re Estate of MacBride No. 89500-7), the Washington State Supreme Court upheld the “Bracken fix,” a retroactive amendment of the 2005 Estate and Transfer Tax Act, Chapter 83.100 RCW. (Prior to 2005, Washington did not have an independent estate tax and instead participated…
The Long Reach of Washington’s Long-Arm Statute
In Failla v. FixtureOne Corp., No. 89671-2, the Washington Supreme Court adopted a broad interpretation of the Washington long-arm statute. It concluded that the founder and CEO of a non-resident corporation, which had a single employee in Washington state, was subject to personal jurisdiction. “We hold that employing a Washington resident to perform work…
Investor in Mortgage-backed Securities Cannot Deduct Interest Earned
In Cashmere Valley Bank v. WA Dept. of Revenue, No. 8937-5, the Washington Supreme Court interpreted the state tax deduction statute, RCW 82.04.4292 (1980). The statute, prior to being amended in 2012, provided that banks and financial institutions could deduct from their income “amounts derived from interest received on investments or loans primarily secured…
No Private Right of Action Under Deeds of Trusts Act
In Frias v. Asset Foreclosure Services, Inc., the Washington Supreme Court held that the state law does not recognize an independent cause of action for monetary damages based on alleged violations of the Deeds of Trust Act (DTA), Chapter 61.24 RCW, when no foreclosure sale has been completed. However, under some circumstances DTA violations may…
Seeking Absolutes in a World of Probabilities: Washington Supreme Court Finds Mesothelioma to be Risk of Asbestos Exposure Rather than a Certain Harm
In Waltson v. Boeing Co., a 5-4 majority of the Washington Supreme Court held that Boeing did not have actual knowledge in 1985 that asbestos exposure would cause certain injury and that its former employee was therefore only entitled to worker’s compensation payment for the cost of the mesothelioma that likely resulted from that exposure. While evidence showed Boeing knew that asbestos caused cellular damage and posed a risk of mesothelioma, the Court held that awareness of risk was not sufficient to defeat an employer’s tort immunity under the worker’s compensation system. Had Boeing known that asbestos would cause certain injury, the employee’s estate would have been able to put aside worker’s compensation to sue Boeing for torts related to his disease and death.
Continue Reading Seeking Absolutes in a World of Probabilities: Washington Supreme Court Finds Mesothelioma to be Risk of Asbestos Exposure Rather than a Certain Harm
TEDRA Statute of Limitations Does Not Run Against A Minor Without a Guardian Ad Litem
In Anderson v. Dussault, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed dismissal of a 20-year old plaintiff’s breach of trust action against the trustee and her malpractice action against the attorney responsible for the trust accounting. A special needs trust had been set up for the plaintiff after she…
Debt Buyers Who Solicit Claims are “Collection Agencies” Subject to WCAA
In Gray v. Suttell & Associates, the Washington Supreme Court answered the question certified by the District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, whether debt buyers who purchase defaulted consumer obligations can pursue, as plaintiffs, collections actions in Washington. If the debt buyer directly or indirectly solicits claims for collection, the debt buyer…
Admission of Expert Testimony Is Still a Discretionary Call
In today’s Johnston-Forbes v. Matsunaga decision, the Washington Supreme Court reiterated the rule that expert testimony is admissible if (1) the expert is qualified, (2) the expert relies on theories that are generally accepted in the scientific community, and (3) the testimony would be helpful to the trier of fact. The trial court has to…