Court Filings

The Washington Supreme Court answered a certified question from a federal district court about whether RCW 70.170.060(8)(a) — the charity care notice provision — applies to a debt collection agency collecting hospital debt. The court held yes: collection agencies collecting hospital debt must provide notice of charity care under the plain language and policy of the charity care act, and an assignee of hospital debt takes on notice obligations tied to that debt. The court further explained that failure to provide notice can support a non-per-se Consumer Protection Act claim based on violation of the act’s public-policy goals.

The Washington Supreme Court reviewed whether the six-year construction statute of repose (RCW 4.16.300-.310) bars estate claims by the executor of Lee Hetterly, who developed fatal mesothelioma decades after working at ARCO’s Cherry Point refinery. The court held that claims arising from Brand Insulations’ construction work installing asbestos-containing insulation during refinery construction are time-barred by the statute of repose, but claims premised on Brand’s role as a product seller or negligent supplier are not barred. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that division of claims.

The Washington Supreme Court answered certified questions from a federal case about whether a home equity line of credit (HELOC) is a negotiable instrument and whether an alleged beneficiary can be the “holder” of such a HELOC for purposes of initiating a nonjudicial trustee’s sale under the deed of trust act (DTA). The majority held that HELOCs of this revolving type are nonnegotiable and that the DTA’s requirement that the beneficiary be the “holder” refers to the holder of a negotiable instrument under the Uniform Commercial Code, so RRA could not truthfully declare it was the holder and thus could not proceed nonjudicially. The court noted judicial remedies remain available.

The Washington Supreme Court held that child welfare records in the custody of the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) are generally privileged under RCW 74.04.060(1)(a), but an exception in that statute permits disclosure when the records are needed in a judicial proceeding directly concerned with administration of the foster care program. The court also held RCW 13.50.100 does not bar disclosure because plaintiffs are entitled to records that “pertain” to them. The trial courts’ orders compelling production of redacted records under protective orders were affirmed; fee requests were denied.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the King County Assessor in a class action brought by the Washington Hospitality Association (WHA). WHA sought property tax relief under RCW 84.70.010(1), arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic qualified as a “natural disaster” that reduced hotel property values. The court held that “natural disaster” in the statute refers to a physically destructive event originating in the earth, atmosphere, or planet (e.g., flood, earthquake, eruption), and does not encompass a pandemic or disease-related economic losses. Because WHA’s properties suffered no physical damage, relief was unavailable.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that Robert Sydow acquired title to a disputed strip of land by adverse possession as a matter of law. Sydow had fenced, used, and maintained the land continuously from 2008 to 2020, and successive purchasers and owners had actual or constructive notice of his possession. The court rejected the defendant Douglass Properties’ defenses based on the common grantor doctrine and equitable estoppel because the deed line was not a visible boundary on the ground and Douglass had actual knowledge of the encroachment. The case is remanded for entry of partial summary judgment for Sydow and determination of attorney fees under RCW 7.28.083.

The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the superior court's dismissal of a putative class complaint by absent class member Destiny Corbin against Life Care Centers. Corbin filed claims for unpaid meal periods five days after a separate, court-approved class settlement (Atkinson) resolved claims about unpaid COVID-19 testing and screening time. The court held that the scope of preclusion depends on the settling parties’ intent; because the Atkinson settlement and its notices released only claims related to COVID-19 testing and screening for absent class members, it did not bar Corbin’s distinct meal-period claims. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

The Court of Appeals reviewed a challenge to the Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) determination of nonsignificance for the Wishbone Timber Sale, a proposed harvest of about 100 acres within a larger sustainable harvest plan. The court held the DNS was not clearly erroneous and struck the lower court’s order requiring a site-specific climate impact assessment. However, it held DNR must perform an alternatives analysis under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(e) because the sale presents an actual choice of uses for the trees at the sale site. The case is partially reversed, partially affirmed, and remanded for that limited compliance.

The Washington Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and held that a creditor seeking recognition of a foreign-country money judgment under the state’s Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (ch. 6.40A RCW) must, absent general or specific personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor in Washington, show that the debtor has property in Washington. The case arose after an English court entered judgment for Alterna against SpiceJet and Alterna sought recognition in King County. The Court reasoned recognition is not purely ministerial and that constitutional due process requires a jurisdictional nexus for recognition actions when personal jurisdiction is lacking.

The Court of Appeals held that Washington public policy bars an insured from assigning legal malpractice claims against defense counsel to its liability insurer when a conflict of interest exists between insurer and insured. The dispute arose after Great American (primary insurer) paid a $5 million settlement for its insured C3 and obtained an assignment of C3’s malpractice claims against defense counsel. Because the insurer had defended under a reservation of rights and thus had potential conflict with the insured, the court reversed the superior court’s denial of judgment on the pleadings and ordered dismissal of the assigned claims.

The Washington Supreme Court answered a certified question from the Ninth Circuit about whether a consumer who buys and keeps a product at its advertised price but was induced to buy it by a false representation about the product’s former price has a cognizable injury under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The Court held that such a buyer does not allege an injury to “business or property” under the CPA when the purchased, fungible product conforms to its advertised qualities and the purchaser paid the advertised price. The Court explained that mere disappointed expectations or being tricked into buying an item that is not objectively less valuable do not establish CPA injury, though other theories (e.g., objectively inferior goods) could.