Appeals
Hesse & Olson v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2010). A federal judge dismissed a Washington statewide class action against a telecommunications company on the basis that it was barred by a nationwide class action settlement in Kansas. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed because the interests of the Washington plaintiffs were not adequately represented in the Kansas nationwide class action, and the claims of the Washington plaintiffs were not based on the same factual predicate as the claims in the settled class action.
Magaña v. Hyundai Motor America, 167 Wn.2d 570, 220 P.3d 191 (2009). Jesse Magana was a seat-belted passenger in a vehicle that was involved in an accident, the force of which propelled him through the rear window, rendering him paraplegic. He sued Hyundai, the vehicle manufacturer, alleging a design defect. A jury found in favor of Magana, and Hyundai appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the verdict in part, and the case was scheduled for trial a second time. Shortly before the second trial, it was discovered that Hyundai had failed to provide complete and truthful responses to discovery requests. The trial judge entered a default judgment against Hyundai as a discovery sanction. Hyundai appealed again. The Supreme Court affirmed the default judgment against Hyundai as a sanction for its false and misleading discovery responses.
McCallum v. Allstate Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 149 Wn. App. 412, 204 P.3d 944 (2009). The plaintiff filed a bad faith action against her insurer, Allstate, alleging violations of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) based on Allstate’s handling of her uninsured motorist claim. During the course of the lawsuit, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of certain documents from Allstate. Allstate filed a motion for a protective order to prevent the plaintiff from disclosing the documents. The trial judge initially granted a conditional protective order but later vacated the protective order. Allstate then requested review by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) Allstate failed to show that its claim manuals, claim bulletins, and training manual were trade secrets subject to protective sealing by the court; and (2) the trial court's decision to vacate the protective order was justified.
Cornhusker Casualty Insurance Company v. Kachman, 165 Wn.2d 404, 198 P.3d 505 (2008). This case established that an insurance company’s use of certified mail to send a notice of cancellation of an insurance policy does not comply with the mailing requirement of RCW 48.18.290, but instead is a form of personal delivery and therefore actual delivery must be proved to comply with the statute.
Insurance Company v. Doe (2004)
Our firm pursued an appeal involving the cancellation of insurance policies by a hospital and its insurer after our client had passed away from medical negligence after surgery. The hospital went bankrupt and we challenged the right of the hospital and insurers to cancel its policies under a state law that prohibits a retroactive annulment of the polices after an occurrence, including a death. The lower court had ruled that the cancellations were valid because a claim on the policy was not filed until after it was cancelled. The Washington Supreme Court held that the state law made null and void and such cancellation of the policy after a death irrespective of when the claim was filed.
