Rick J. Wathen | Rory W. Leid III | Ryan J. Hall | Kimberly Larsen Rider |

William L. Weber | Mark S. Cole | Nathan L. Furman

Representative Cases      

• Motorsports, LTD v. Mid-Century Insurance Co. - 2006 WL 1134954 (2006)

• Johnson v. Allstate - 126 Wn. App. 510, 108 P.3d 1273 (2005)

• Shekarchi v. Allstate - 2005 WL 1178053 (2005)

• Manteufel v. SAFECO - 117 Wn. App. 168 (2003)

• Schaeffer v. Farmers Insurance Exchange - 2002 WL 662889 (2002)

• Tornetta v. Allstate - 94 Wn. App. 803, 973 P.2d 8 (1999)

Defense verdict! Plaintiff asked the jury to award $4,268,112.00 million and was awarded $0.00

 Edmondson v Cammarano - King County Superior Court

 Rick Wathen achieved an excellent result for our client. This litigation arose from an alleged automobile accident at the SeaTac airport. The facts and liability were disputed in this incident. The Plaintiff was a limo driver.  He claims that he dropped off a passenger.  While completing the transaction, he claims she ran over his feet when she tried to pass on the inside lane of the drop-off location. 

 Plaintiff went to the emergency room later that day and was diagnosed with a “crush injury.”  However, a review of the medical and diagnostic tests revealed little, if any, injury.  A full review of the Plaintiff at the emergency room indicated that his third toe was tender, with no other objective findings of injury.

 Thereafter, the Plaintiff was treated by a variety of other health care professionals for a number of other regions of his body for alleged injuries.  Most of the diagnoses and treatments appeared to be for largely subjective complaints.  Plaintiff’s incurred medical expenses were claimed at $52,392.00 Plaintiff claimed permanent injuries based upon a diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome.  Plaintiff retained Dr. Joshua Prager at a cost of more than $30,000.00 in expert expenses to testify that Plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by the accident.  Dr. Prager testified that the Plaintiff would need future medical care at a cost of $289,75.00. Plaintiff also presented an accident reconstructionist to testify about the accident itself.

 Plaintiff asked the jury to award $4,28,112.00 million in damages. Prior to trial, the defense had offered $82,712.19.  After a two-week trial, the jury delivered a defense verdict and awarded the Plaintiff $0.

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. 

• First American Insurance Company v. Wolverton et al, 3:23-cv-05228-TMC - Court Finds No Duty to Defend - Rory Leid, Lauren Fugere, and Matt Heyert prevailed on a summary judgment for declaratory relief finding that the insurance company had no duty to defend or indemnify the insureds in a wrongful death lawsuit after the decedent ingested, in part, fentanyl, an illicit substance, on the insured’s property.  The decedent passed away because of the ingestion of fentanyl.  The estate of the decedent claimed that because the death occurred on the insured’s property, the insured’s homeowner’s insurance should provide coverage.  The insurance company prevailed in establishing that the policy excluded coverage when illicit substances were involved, establishing that there was no duty under the policy to defend or indemnify.

• 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.

• Shin v. Allstate - Rory Leid, assisted by Lucy Wilhelm, prevailed on a motion for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s extracontractual claims, including alleged bad faith and violations of the CPA and IFCA. Plaintiff alleged that Allstate denied coverage by making an unreasonably low settlement offer and failing to sufficiently explain the basis for the offer. On summary judgment, the Court found that there was no denial of coverage, and therefore there could be no bad faith or violation of the IFCA. The Court found that Allstate’s conduct was reasonable and dismissed all of Plaintiff’s extracontractual claims.

• WLHR Secures Summary Judgment of Dismissal of Claims Stemming from Wrongful Termination - Rory W. Leid, III, assisted by associate Laura E. Gage, represented Randy and Sonya Weaver in the matter of Karstetter v. King County Corrections Guild, King County Superior Court Case No. 16-2-12397-0 SEA. Plaintiff Karstetter brought suit against a number of parties in this case from 2016 and brought in an interlocutory appeal before the Supreme Court of Washington in 2018. Plaintiff filed suit against both Weavers for blacklisting, defamation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court dismissed all counts based primarily on a failure to show damages were not the result of the plaintiff’s actions and on a failure of the plaintiff to link the Weavers to those unproven damage amounts.

• Defense Verdict on Trial De Novo, where the plaintiffs were each asking for $124,000 and were awarded $17,075 and $10,000. - Rory W. Leid, III, assisted by John B. Fay, represented Andrew Coyle, Kerri Coyle, and Menfis Montoya in the matter of Rudin v Coyle & Montoya, King County Superior Court, Case No. 20-2-06713-0.  This was a soft tissue injury claim that was tried via Zoom. 

• Wrongful Death Summary Judgment Won -Rory Leid successfully prevailed on summary judgment in a wrongful death claim, establishing that their client, defendant Maurice, was not liable for the death that occurred where there were successive vehicle collisions. The Estate of Ley claimed that the death was caused in part by Mr. Maurice, who caused the initial accident. Subsequently, a drunk driver came and killed the decedent, who was outside of his car on the side of the road at the time of the second accident. On the motion for summary judgment, defendant Maurice prevailed, establishing no cause in fact or proximate cause. The Estate brought a motion for reconsideration, and parties were asked to brief the issues, focusing on foreign case law since no Washington cases exist for this exact scenario. Defendant Maurice prevailed once again on the motion for reconsideration.

• WLHR Receives Defense Verdict in 2nd Firm Zoom Trial -Rory Leid represented Page Cellars LLC in the matter Lisa Hackler v Page Cellars et al., King County Superior Court Case No. 19-2-01275-7 SEA. The plaintiff sued Page Cellars LLC and The Evans Company for negligence when she slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of Woodinville Park North. The Evans Company is the owner and landlord of Woodinville Park North, and Page Cellars LLC operates a winery at this location as a tenant. There were several issues of fact regarding who created the ice that Plaintiff fell on at Woodinville Park North. Additionally, Plaintiff testified that she saw the ice prior to falling and chose to walk across it. This was corroborated by the additional testimony of Plaintiff’s friends who accompanied her that night, and they also saw the ice but chose to walk a different route. The trial was conducted on Zoom and lasted eight days. Plaintiff was seeking in excess of $2,000,000 in damages from the injuries she sustained. After deliberation, the jury returned with a verdict that Page Cellars LLC and The Evans Company were negligent but were not the proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries.

• CWLH Obtains Ruling Foreclosing Claim in Excess of $1,000,000 - Rory Leid successfully prevailed on summary judgment in establishing that motorcycle UIM coverage is not afforded by the operation of the statute. The Luckes did not purchase insurance coverage for a motorcycle, and Mr. Lucke was subsequently injured while riding the uninsured motorcycle.  The Luckes claimed that RCW 48.22.030(9) operated to provide motorcycle UIM coverage by operation of the statute and that the claim was worth over $1,000,000. On motion for summary judgment, Commerce West prevailed in establishing as a matter of law that the statute does not operate to create coverage where none otherwise existed.  Thus, Commerce West bore no liability under the policy.

• CWLH Prevails on Summary Judgment, No UM Coverage - Rory Leid successfully prevailed on summary judgment in establishing that PIP and UIM coverage does not apply to an adult child of the insured when riding an uninsured moped. The Kanes did not purchase insurance coverage for a moped their adult son purchased.  The son was subsequently involved in a collision and made claims for PIP and UIM coverage. Commerce West prevailed on summary judgment in establishing that the adult son was not covered as a resident relative or a “pedestrian,” which the Kanes had argued.  Claimed damages were several hundred thousand dollars.    

• The Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine Apply in UIM 1st Party Cases, and Information Generated Post-Litigation is Not Discoverable - Assisted by A. Elyse O’Neill. Richardson v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 200 Wn. App. 705, 403 P.3d 115, (2017), petition for review denied, 2018 Wash. LEXIS 264 (Wash., Apr. 4, 2018).

• Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, Upholds Jury Verdict Finding Plaintiffs Intentionally Started Fire - Dennis Schmidt and Wendy Demeter v. American Commerce Insurance Company Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, No. 74369-4-1.

• Allstate Prevails on Actual Cash Value - Assisted by Jeremy L. Muth. Represented Allstate Insurance Company in declaratory action, Allstate Insurance Company v. Richard Pennant and Sandie Pennant, USDC W.D. Wash. Case No. 3:17-cv-05817-RBL.

• Chan v Theresa Yang & Farmers Insurance Company - CWLH was able to obtain a defense verdict in the case of Chan v Theresa Yang & Farmers Insurance Company. This was an Agent Negligence case wherein Ms. Chan alleged that the agent was negligent in failing to provide an endorsement for additional equipment that the insured had installed on her vehicle. Mr. Leid was successful in dismissing the Consumer Protection Act claim on Summary Judgment, and the Agent Negligence case proceeded to trial. The jury found that the agent was not negligent and returned a complete defense verdict in favor of Theresa Yang - Hang W. Chan v. Teresa Yang, doing business as Farmers Insurance, King County District Court Cause No. 155-08378

• Allstate v. Lighthouse et. al. - CWLH successfully prevails on behalf of Allstate in the unlawful practice of law, criminal profiteering, and fraud suit - USDC, Western District of Washington, Cause No. 2:15-cv-01976 RSL

• North Seattle Health Center Corp. v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company - Obtains $350,000.00 judgment against health clinic and owners - WWDC Cause No. 2:14-cv-01680-JAR

• American Commerce Insurance Company v. Ross Hill and Lindsey Clarimont, et al - CWLH wins declaratory judgment action - USDC – Eastern – Case 2:17-cv-00111-TO

• Kabrich v. Allstate - 9th Circuit upholds dismissal of bad faith claims - US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Case No. 14-35768

• Chang v. Glover - Court overturns default - King County Superior Court No. 14-2-30263-1 SEA

• Newkirk et al v. Allstate - Insurance bad faith claim involving Allstate’s denial of a burglary claim where over a quarter of a million dollars in personal property was allegedly stolen from a garage. Obtained a beneficial settlement result after uncovering evidence of fraud and misrepresentation, and concealment - WWDC Cause No. 2:2014cv01315

• Goettemoeller v. Twist - Obtained dismissal of the lawsuit and affirmed on appeal for service of process issues - 161 Wn.App. 103, 253 P.3d 405 (2011)

• Ensley v. American Commerce - UIM Bad Faith lawsuit obtained dismissal of all claims at the trial court level and affirmed on appeal - 153 Wn. App. 31, 220 P.3d 215 (2009)

• Wright v. SAFECO - First-party Insurance Claim regarding bad faith and coverage for a water loss. Obtained dismissal at trial court level of all claims and affirmed on appeal. - 124 Wn.App. 263, 109 P.3d 1 (2004)

• Keith v. Allstate - First-party vehicle fire loss, including issues of insurance fraud, coverage, and extra-contractual claims. Obtained dismissal of all claims at the trial court and affirmed on appeal - 105 Wn.App. 251, 19 P.3d 443 (2001)

• Koehler v. Allstate - First Party insurance claim involving two theft losses and a water loss. Obtained dismissal of all claims at trial court level and affirmed on appeal - Court of Appeals, Division I, Cause No. 62778-3-I

• Larsen v. Burzotta - Third-party automobile accident obtained dismissal at trial court level based on bankruptcy and affirmed on appeal - Court of Appeals, Division I, Cause No. 67447-1-

• Schmidt et al. v. American Commerce Insurance Company - Obtained the largest arson defense verdict in the history of Washington State. Fire loss case where there was evidence of arson and insurance fraud. After a five-week jury trial, which commenced on September 8, 2015, the Schmidt-Demeters requested that the jury award them nearly 8 Million dollars plus attorney fees; they also asked the court for trebling of the jury award under the Insurance Fair Conduct Act. The jury found that the fire loss was caused by Mr. Schmidt committing insurance fraud by intentionally setting his family home on fire, and American Commerce obtained a full defense verdict. American Commerce obtained a verdict in excess of $500,000 - KCC No.: 11-2-28529-4.

• Taylor v. Allstate - First-party water loss and theft loss, including issues of fraud, coverage, and extra-contractual claims. Obtained dismissal of all claims and accept the alleged violations of the Consumer Protection Act. Obtained a favorable settlement on the remaining CPA claim - EWDC Cause Number 2:15-cv-00030-SAB.

Representative Cases  

• 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.

• The defense verdict won when the plaintiff was asking 2.1 million and was awarded only $7,000 In what was the first all-Zoom trial for the firm and one of the first in the state, Bill Weber was able to achieve a great result for our client. The case involved a plaintiff involved in two incidents. First, the plaintiff was struck in the shoulder area as a pedestrian by the mirror of a passing school bus. The facts and liability were disputed in this first incident. The second incident occurred approximately 18 months later when our client rear-ended the plaintiff at a stop sign causing moderate property damage. Liability was admitted. A few weeks after the MVA, our client passed away from unrelated natural causes, and we ultimately represented his adult son as the personal representative of his father’s estate. Plaintiff was still treated for neck, back, shoulder, and headache complaints up to the time of the rear-end accident. Plaintiff was 53 years old at the time of the bus incident and was employed in the construction industry performing a great deal of physical labor. He missed some time from work following the bus incident. Following the second MVA, the plaintiff continued to treat with chiropractic, physical therapy, massage therapy, and a physiatrist. Eventually, the plaintiff had numerous injections for ongoing neck pain, which was diagnosed as cervical facet syndrome. He also underwent radiofrequency ablation on one occasion with good temporary results. The parties stipulated approximately $54k in past medical treatment as reasonable and necessary. The parties also stipulated, and the judge instructed, the past medical specials should be apportioned $47k to the bus incident and $7k to the MVA. Medical testimony established that the rear-end accident caused aggravation injuries to the plaintiff’s neck and back and new injuries to his hip. The testimony opined that the plaintiff returned to baseline within 6 to 12 months following the MVA. There was conflicting medical testimony as to whether the permanent cervical condition (3% total body impairment) was due solely to the first incident or not. The medical testimony agreed that future treatment would be necessary but differed in terms of what that treatment should be. Plaintiff asked the jury to award $2.1 million in damages. The co-defendant argued that $150k would be reasonable for damages associated with their loss but argued for a defense verdict on liability too. Bill argued $6k in general damages for a six-month exacerbation injury would be reasonable. The jury awarded $71k to the plaintiff for the bus incident but found the plaintiff to be 85% at fault. The jury awarded $7k in medical specials they were instructed to award against our client but awarded no general damages. The total award against our client then was $7k, substantially below settlement amounts offered at mediation and up to the time of trial.

• CWLH Prevails on Diminished Value Claim - William L. Weber III received a directed verdict on this novel diminished value case. Plaintiff contended his carrier, American Family, was negligent in its claims handling of a damaged relatively-new pickup truck by not making him “whole” following the third party tortfeasor’s liability carrier’s offer on the diminished value. American Family opted to repair the vehicle rather than determining it was a total loss when the net cost to repair was only slightly lower than the net cost to “total” the vehicle. Plaintiff further asserted the claims handling was done in bad faith and violated IFCA and the CPA by arguing that Am Fam was putting its own financial interests before the insureds. Tellingly, the plaintiff did not bring a breach of contract claim because he understood that there was no contract language that would support such a claim. Plaintiff offered the testimony of an expert appraiser that the amount offered by the third-party carrier was about half the “true” diminished value following the repairs. The court concluded that the policy language did not require the insured to be “made whole” and that the insurer is entitled to limit its liability in policy language, as was the case here. As a result, the adjuster was not negligent or acting in bad faith when complying with the policy language and following typical claims handling procedures.

• Tina Dworsky v. American Family Casualty Insurance Company - CWLH secures jury verdict substantially below last settlement offer - Pierce County Superior Court, Cause No. 15-2-05859-8

• Gonzalez v. Spencer - CWLH obtains directed verdict on causation - Chelan County Superior Court, Cause No. 14-2-00723-4

• Matthew v. Pfenninger - Jury verdict substantially beats last offer - Jefferson County District Court, Cause No. 16156