HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions For Monday, December 23, 2013

HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions For Monday, December 23, 2013

Monday, December 23, 2013 

To view the full text of these opinions, please visit: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.recent or Lexis subscribers may use the links below to access the cases on either lexis.com or Lexis Advance.


Division One of the Court of Appeals filed 6 new published opinions on Monday, December 23, 2013:

1. Amalgamated Transit Union Local No. 1576 v. Snohomish County Pub. Transp. Benefit Area
No. 69641-6
(December 23, 2013)
2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2889  (lexis.com)

2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2889 (Lexis Advance) 

Areas: GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Brief: The community transit's bylaws are void insofar as they prohibit what the state law requires by removing the board chair's discretion to determine when the nonvoting member can attend executive sessions.

2. Lisby v. Paccar, Inc.

No. 69008-6
(December 23, 2013)
2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2892 (lexis.com)

2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2892 (Lexis Advance) 

Areas: COURTS; PERSONAL INJURY AND INSURANCE LAW 

Brief: A Washington trial court that dismisses an action on the ground that another state is a more convenient forum may not require the defendant to stipulate that Washington's statute of repose will govern the case. Deciding what state's statute of repose will apply to the action is a choice of law issue that does not determine the adequacy or convenience of the alternative forum.

3. Akhavuz v. Moody
No. 69234-8
(December 23, 2013)
2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2891 (lexis.com)

2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2891 (Lexis Advance) 

Areas: COURTS; PERSONAL INJURY AND INSURANCE LAW

Brief: The motion to vacate the default judgment should have been denied because the insurer and defense counsel who failed to respond to the complaint offered no excuse for the long delay. There is no “innocent insured” doctrine that allows an insurer to escape responsibility by keeping its insured unaware that the matter is being neglected.

4. In re Estate of Stover / Vaux-Michel v. Simmons 
No. 69546-1
(December 23, 2013)
2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2895 (lexis.com)

2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2895 (Lexis Advance) 

Areas: COURTS; DOMESTIC RELATIONS AND FAMILY LAW

Brief: When a claim against an estate in probate is rejected by certified mail, RCW 11.40.100(1) requires the claimant to file suit against the estate within 30 days after the postmark date. Because the claimant in this case failed to file suit against the estate within 30 days after the postmark on her rejected claim, and because CR 6 does not apply to extend this time limitation, the Court of Appeals reverses and remands to the trial court with instructions to vacate the judgment and fees and costs award, determine the personal representative's request for trial fees and costs, and dismiss the action with prejudice.

5. Akrie v. Grant

No. 68345-4
(December 23, 2013)
2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2893 (lexis.com)

2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2893 (Lexis Advance) 

Areas: COURTS; GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Brief: The anti-SLAPP statute, RCW 4.24.525,  mandates a $10,000 award to each moving party who prevails on a motion to dismiss.

6. Montaney v. J-M Mfg. Co. 
No. 69364-6
(December 23, 2013)
2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2894 (lexis.com)

2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2894 (Lexis Advance) 

Areas: PERSONAL INJURY AND INSURANCE LAW

Brief: The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim against the defendant arising from the plaintiff's exposure to asbestos from pipe the defendant sold. At the summary judgment hearing, evidence was presented that (1) the plaintiff was repeatedly exposed to asbestos dust while working with asbestos concrete (A/C) pipe between 1972 and 1990; (2) he purchased A/C pipe from a single distributor into the 1980s; and (3) the distributor carried A/C pipe sold by the defendant in 1983 and 1984. The Court of Appeals reverses the summary judgment, holding that the evidence is sufficient for a jury to reasonably infer that the plaintiff was exposed to A/C pipe sold by the defendant. 

About HeadsUp: Tell a friend to register online to subscribe to receive issues of the HeadsUp for Washington. To opt-out, unsubscribe or to stop receiving this communication, use this link. For questions or comments, please write: HeadsUp@lexisnexis.com. HeadsUp for Washington is brought to you by LexisNexis®, publisher of the Washington Official Reports.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.