representative cases

· Nelson v. Erickson, 186 Wn.2d 385, 377 P.3d 196 (2016) Supreme Court affirmed reversal of $63K attorney fee award because an ordinary person would understand defendant improved position on trial de novo.

· Morin v. Burris, 160 Wn.2d 745, 161 P.3d 956 (2007) A default order and judgment were vacated because plaintiff failed to disclose a lawsuit had been filed when the defendant’s liability insurer specifically inquired about the status of the case.

· Del Rosario v. Del Rosario, 152 Wn.2d 375, 97 P.3d 11 (2004) Challenge to a personal injury release involving a non-English speaker. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s application of the Finch “fairly and knowingly made” test for challenging a release. A party can only successfully challenge a release by establishing misrepresentation, overreaching, or undue influence.

· Aranda v. Haywood, 143 Wn.2d 321, 19 P.3d 406 (2001) Plaintiff who waited until after trial was estopped from challenging adequacy of proof of service of the request for trial de novo of a mandatory arbitration award.

· Ashley v. Hall, 138 Wn.2d 151, 978 P.2d 1055 (1999) Admission of lay opinion that did not meet requirements of ER 701 was harmless error where opponent did not timely object or move to strike.

· Baker v. Hawkins, 190 Wn. App. 323, 359 P.3d 931 (2015) Service of process on contractor working at defendant's home was not substitute service because he was not living there.

· Russell v. Maas, 166 Wn. App. 885, 272 P.3d 273 (2012) Trial de novo request reinstated after opponent moved to strike because the attorney, not the party, initiated the request. The court reaffirmed the fundamental principles that an attorney acts for the client and attorney client communications are protected.

· Harvey v. Obermeit, 163 Wn. App. 311, 261 P.3d 671 (2011) Plaintiff failed to make due and diligent effort to find and serve defendant, so case was dismissed for lack of service.

· Tribble v. Allstate Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 134 Wn. App. 163, 139 P.3d 373 (2006) Judgment against UIM/UM carrier in a trial for contract benefits is limited to the amount of the UIM/UM policy limits.