Washington

Insurance policies are often rather complete and precise in what exactly they will cover.  When a policy fails to include a definition to a potentially vague term, Washington courts will look to the intent of the laws guiding a definition, while also seeking to incorporate the definition most favorable to plaintiff.

Patients have a high expectation their communication, diagnoses, and treatment will remain confidential when speaking with their medical providers. This includes treating physicians, nurses, and social workers. Washington law enforces this privileged bond. How far does this privilege extend? What other privileges may defeat the physician-patient privilege, if any?

The law is ever-evolving. Thought paradigms shift with an increased understanding of human dynamics and the introduction of new ideas. Washington law typically follows a more liberal-sided evolution of the law, often causing defense attorneys some degree of frustration. Washington law regulates minimum wage but also provides exemptions from the minimum wage requirement for some positions in various industries. The Minimum Wage Act of Washington was based on the Fair Labor Standards of 1938, which plaintiffs in Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Brothers Dairy, Inc., WL 6495500 (2020) claimed incorporated racist motivations underlying the federal statute.

Consumer Protection Act (CPA) claims must satisfy five elements to be successful in Washington. A plaintiff must establish (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) occurring in trade or commerce, (3) affecting the public interest, (4) injury to a person’s business or property, and (5) causation. In Young v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., WL 5668986 (2020), the Washington Court of Appeals opined the unfair or deceptive act must be material for the first element to be satisfied. The Washington Supreme Court found this conclusion to mistake the sufficient for the necessary.

Washington law prohibits an award of damages if the claimant was drunk and more than 50 percent at fault for causing the damages. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington (“RCW”) section 5.40.060(1) is an affirmative defense, and provides “the person injured . . . was [(1)] under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug at the time of the occurrence causing the injury . . . and [(2)] that such condition was a proximate cause of the injury . . . and [(3)] the trier of fact finds such person to have been more than fifty percent at fault.”

Demands may present in many forms. The most common of those forms is a letter. Typical demand letters contain the word “demand,” specify what is demanded, and often provide a timeframe for the demand to be met. The Washington Supreme Court performed an analysis of a letter in Robbins v. Mason County Title Ins. Co., 462 P.3d 430 (2020), which turned on the plain meaning of the word “demand.”

The Washington Court of Appeals strictly adheres to the time constraints for filing an appeal found in the Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP). However, the RAP occasionally confuse even the most well-intentioned attorney and deadlines are missed (…enter, the dreaded malpractice suit). The Washington Supreme Court evaluated whether a summary judgment order resolving…

The Washington Supreme Court recently analyzed whether a speculative statement qualified as a “report concerning the possible occurrence of abuse or neglect” under former RCW 26.44.050. In Wrigley v. State, 455 P.3d 1138, (2020), Ms. Wrigley brought a negligent investigation claim against Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), based on the placement of her son, A.A., with his biological father…

Juries hold significant power. The power to decide extreme sums of payment. The power to decide life or death. Juries also hold the power to act as a check on government power to ensure the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. With such power comes responsibility, and such responsibility must begin with a fairly selected jury. The Washington Supreme Court analyzes fair and just…

Disqualifying one judge from a case in Washington is a fundamental right. No reasoning is needed. However, a judge may only be disqualified before the judge has made a discretionary ruling or order in the case. The RCW provided (now expanded) slim examples of actions by a judge which are not discretionary ruling or order. In Godfrey v. Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd., 453 P.3d 992 (2019), the Washington Supreme Court analyzes the…

The Consumer Protection Act (CPA) prohibits unfair and deceptive trade practices. Persons “injured in their business or property” may sue for injunctive relief, damages, attorney’s costs and fees, and treble damages. Krista Peoples and Joel Stedman sued their insurance carriers under the CPA for violating Washington claims-handling regulations and wrongfully denying them personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. The Washington…

Every once in a while a party will try to introduce “expert testimony” to prevent summary judgment based upon conjecture and/or speculation. Courts typically, and correctly, preclude this evidence and grant summary judgment. However, in Strauss v. Premera Blue Cross, 449 P.3d 640 (2019), the Washington Supreme Court ruled expert testimony based on inconclusive evidence (speculation) was sufficient to overcome summary judgment.

In April 2007, Moun Keodalah and an uninsured motorcyclist collided in an intersection in Washington. After Keodalah stopped at a stop sign and entered the intersection, the motorcyclist collided with Keodalah’s truck. Keodalah was injured and the motorcyclist perished. Keodalah carried underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage…