Dylan R. Knapp

Associate Attorney

Mr. Knapp received his B.A. in History and B.A. in Law and Justice from Central Washington University before receiving his J.D. from Willamette University College of Law. Mr. Knapp sat for and passed the July 2021 bar exam.

 During law school, Mr. Knapp worked in the Willamette University Business Law Clinic and the Advanced Civil Practice Clinic, providing legal services for businesses.

 When not practicing law, Mr. Knapp enjoys reading, hiking, playing soccer, and studying history.

Representative Cases  

• GEICO v. Weilert, Case No. 23-2729 (9th Cir. Oct. 15, 2024) - Rory Leid and Dylan Knapp successfully prevailed on a First Party Coverage case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The lower court held that the insureds could not stack their UIM coverage for each vehicle that had a UIM premium. The insureds wanted to stack their three vehicles $100,000/$300,000 Policy to receive $900,000 in UIM coverage. GEICO’s policy explicitly excluded the stacking of UIM coverage. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that the Policy does not allow UIM stacking holding that the Policy unambiguously prevents stacking of UIM coverage. The ruling affirmed GEICO’s decision to pay the full limits of $300,000 rather than the $900,000 demanded by the insureds.   

• Estate of Helm v. Selz - Bill Weber, who tried the case with Dylan Knapp, recently obtained a great verdict in the Estate of Helm v. Clay Selz, a Pierce County Superior Court case with an in-person trial. The case involved alleged injuries from a moderate-impact rear-end motor vehicle accident. Mr. Selz admitted liability shortly before trial. Mr. Weber and Mr. Knapp represented Mr. Selz, a GEICO insured. Volker Helm was 77 years old at the time of the accident in August 2019 and suffered from kidney disease. He ultimately died from an unrelated infection about two years after the accident. His wife brought a claim on behalf of Volker’s estate and a loss of consortium claim for herself. Plaintiff insinuated throughout the trial that his injuries from the accident contributed to his death and his wife lost time with her husband, and the time he did have was significantly compromised by his pain from the accident. We argued that, at most, he sustained typical soft tissue “whiplash” strain injuries to his neck and back that were mild and likely resolved within three months and that there was no medical support for the insinuation that the death was in any way related to the accident. Mr. Helm did not seek treatment for his injuries from the accident for more than a year later in August 2020. His wife testified that her husband had to deal with his kidney issues first and then COVID hit and prevented him from getting the treatment he needed at an earlier time. Our medical expert, Dr. Josef Eichinger, an orthopedic surgeon, opined that Mr. Helm likely sustained minor strains to his neck and back that likely resolved within three months and that any complaints he had at the time he did start treatment were more likely due to a flare-up of inflammatory arthritis. The plaintiff’s medical expert was the treating the chiropractor, Dr. Michael Nader, who related his treatment to the accident.  The plaintiff also called one of Mr. Helm’s massage therapists, who gave limited testimony, along with several family members, to describe their observations of the pain he seemed to have from the accident. Chiropractic and massage therapy totaled just over $7k, though Plaintiff chose not to ask for economic damages at trial.Mr. Selz had a $100k liability policy in place. Early into litigation plaintiff made a policy limit demand that was rejected. Prior to trial GEICO authorized us to make a $50k Offer of Judgment that was likewise rejected, and Plaintiff never countered with another demand but intimated that she would no longer accept an offer within limits. At trial, plaintiff asked for $19.2 million in general damages for the estate and her loss of consortium claim. We argued that $25k was more reasonable for a simple whiplash injury that likely resolved well before he sought treatment and that plaintiff had not established any damages to warrant an award for loss of consortium. The jury deliberated for about six hours and ultimately awarded $27k, with $26k to the Estate and $1k for the loss of consortium. In speaking with the jury after the verdict was announced, they unanimously felt we were more reasonable and credible in our presentation of the evidence.

• GEICO v. Weilert, USDC W.D. Wash. Case No. 3:22-cv-05997-DGE- September 2023 – Rory Leid, assisted by Dylan Knapp, prevailed on summary judgment establishing that the insureds could not stack their UIM coverage for each vehicle that had a UIM premium. GEICO’s policy explicitly excluded the stacking of UIM coverage. The Court concluded that GEICO offered the only reasonable interpretation of the insurance policy as would be understood by the average purchaser of insurance and that Washington State allowed UIM insurers to limit the stacking of UIM coverage.