fbpx

Nathan Furman - Senior Counsel

Nathan Furman is Senior Counsel in Tyson & Mendes’ Seattle office. His practice focuses on defending general liability and personal injury cases including auto liability, UIM/UM, premises liability, construction accidents, and construction defect claims.

Mr. Furman has extensive litigation experience, including the defense of motorists, insurance companies, general contractors, subcontractors, school districts, grocery stores, convenience stores, home improvement supplies retailers, small businesses, and individuals in state courts throughout Washington. He obtained dismissal of a wrongful death lawsuit to British Columbia on forum non conveniens grounds. See Klotz v. Dehkhoda, 134 Wn. App. 261, 141 P.3d 67 (2006), rev. denied, 160 Wn.2d 1014 (2007). He defended a general contractor in a lawsuit by a plaintiff utility owner after the contractor struck the utility’s underground line. The plaintiff dismissed its lawsuit after a hearing before an industry group’s dispute review panel.

Mr. Furman is admitted to practice law in Washington, the United States District Court for the Western District and Eastern District of Washington, and the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Furman obtained his J.D. from the University of Oregon in 2001, where he served on the University of Oregon Law Review. After graduation, Mr. Furman was a judicial law clerk to The Honorable C.C. Bridgewater of the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II. Mr. Furman obtained his B.A. from the University of Washington in 1996. He is a member of the Washington Defense Trial Lawyers and the King County Bar Association.

Mr. Furman, his wife, and their two sons like to explore the Pacific Northwest. He hopes to one day take his family on a backpacking trip around Mt. Rainier.

Recent Posts

Florida Supreme Court Caps Damages Based on Sovereign Immunity Statute in Mass Shooting Case

A recent decision from the Supreme Court of Florida, Barnett v. State of Florida, Dep’t of Financial Services, No. SC19-87, ___ So. 2d ___, (Fla. Sep. 24, 2020), addressed Florida’s statute on waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions. Barnett arose from a 2010 mass shooting in which a Florida woman’s estranged husband fatally shot her and four of her children and seriously injured a fifth child.

Under Washington Law, a Child Under Age Six Cannot Be Held Negligent

The Washington Supreme Court has held that children under six years of age are incapable of” “fault.” As a matter of law, no issue of such a child’s negligence can be submitted to the jury.  Price v. Kitsap Transit, 70 Wn. App. 748, 856 P.2d 384 (1993), aff’d, 125 Wn.2d 456 (1994).

Under Washington Law, a Parent’s Negligent Supervision is Not Tortious and Cannot Reduce a Child Plaintiff’s Recovery

Smelser v. Paul, 188 Wn.2d 648, 398 P.3d 1086 (2017) holds that when a parent’s negligent supervision causes injury to their child, the parent is not immune. Rather, the parent’s conduct is simply not tortious. Consequently, no fault can be apportioned to the parent.

Cyclist Did Not Qualify for Personal Injury Protection Coverage Under Auto Policy That Did Not Define the Term “Pedestrian”

Plaintiff was hurt while riding his bicycle. A motorist who parked on the street did not see plaintiff approach and opened his door, striking plaintiff. Plaintiff had an auto policy that provided PIP benefits of up to $5,000 in medical expenses sustained by an “insured.” The policy defined “insured” in relevant part as “a pedestrian when struck by” a motor vehicle. The policy did not define the term “pedestrian.”

Florida Supreme Court Resolves Conflict Between Second and Fifth District Court of Appeals, Ruling that Language in a Reduced-Premium Collector Vehicle Policy Limiting Uninsured Motorist Coverage to Accidents Involving the Occupancy or Use of the Collector Vehicle Violates Florida Statute

American Southern Home Ins. Co. v. Lentini, 286 So.3d 157 (Fla. 2019), arose from a fatal accident between the insured, who operated his motorcycle, and an uninsured motorist. The insured’s estate made a claim for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits under the reduced-premium policy issued on the insured’s collector vehicle, a 1992 Chevrolet Corvette.

Cautionary Tale on Settling with a Pro Se Claimant Who Acquired English as an Additional Language

Nadeem v. Maurer, No. 36630-8-III, 2020 WL 730683 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2020) (unpublished), arose from a motor-vehicle accident involving Mohammed Nadeem and Kendra Maurer. Nadeem was born in Iraq and was not fluent in English, though he understood English for basic transactions.  Shortly after the accident, Nadeem made a bodily injury claim to Maurer’s insurer.

Claims for Professional Negligence Require Expert Testimony on the Standard of Care

In Boesiger v. Desert Appraisals, LLC, 444 P.3d 436 (Nev. Jul. 3, 2019), a married couple bought a home and financed the purchase through a mortgage on the property. The mortgage lender contracted with an appraisal company to perform an appraisal. The appraiser valued the property at $340,000, with 3,002 square feet of gross living area. The appraiser’s report noted a discrepancy between the square…

Cautionary Tale on Signing Discovery Answers

Grosser v. Korsmo and First Transit, Inc., No. 17-2-06113-1 (King County Sup. Ct. 2017), arose from a bus versus pedestrian accident. The elderly plaintiff sued the bus driver and the bus driver’s employer for personal injury. At the accident scene, the bus driver collected eyewitnesses’ names and contact information on forms that his employer had provided him.

Washington Law – UIM and Loss of Consortium Claims

There are two instances in in which Washington courts have repeatedly rejected claims for loss of consortium in the UIM context. First, when the claimant is not an insured. Second, when the claim is subject to a valid policy exclusion.

When Defending Subject to a Reservation of Rights, the Insurer and Defense Counsel Must Adhere to Certain Criteria

Under Washington law, “the duty of good faith of an insurance company defending under a reservation of rights [or “ROR”] includes an enhanced obligation of fairness toward its insured.” Tank v. State Farm, 105 Wn.2d 381, 387-88, 715 P.2d 1133 (1986) (emphasis added). The “[p]otential conflicts between the interests of insurer and insured, inherent in a [ROR] defense, underlie this enhanced obligation.” Id.

Copyright © 2021 Tyson & Mendes LLP. All Rights Reserved. Website by Big Behavior.