General Cases

Washington’s Supreme Court recently issued a decision in Gerlach v. The Cove Apartments, LLC, 196 Wn.2d 111, 471 P.3d 181 (2020), affirming that a plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) was only minimally relevant and excluded it pursuant to ER 403 because the plaintiff admitted intoxication.

On May 12, 2021, Governor Inslee signed into law a new anti-SLAPP law, designed to deter and prevent non-meritorious lawsuits targeted at discouraging individuals from speaking publicly or petitioning government agencies. Washington’s first-in-the-nation anti-SLAPP law took a major hit in the state Supreme Court’s 2015 decision Davis v. Cox, which declared the law’s entire enforcement provision unconstitutional.

 Johnson v. State of Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board – In June 2011, Johnson, a business invitee at the defendant’s state liquor store, slipped and fell in the entryway to that store. It was wet and raining outside. The entryway to the store had an electronic door with a mat inside, meaning that those entering would walk across about five to six feet of carpet to get inside the store, in addition to the rubber mat on the outside of the entryway.

Washington Supreme Court clarifies which parties are protect from SLAPP lawsuits. Roger Leishman, an openly gay man, was hired by the Washington Attorney General’s Office (“AGO”). Early into this employment, Leishman developed symptoms associated with a medical diagnosis of PTSD and anxiety. Leishman advised his employer of this diagnosis and its symptoms.

Washington Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Corporate Attorney-Client Privilege of Independent Contractors. This case arose when Doug Hermanson struck a vehicle and crashed into a utility pole. Hermanson was transported to Tacoma General Hospital (“TGH”), which is owned by MultiCare Health (“MCH”). Hermanson was treated by several MCH employees, including two nurses and a social

Issues: (1) Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the UIM carrier’s litigation conduct after the named insured filed of a UIM? NO. (2) Whether the trial court erred in finding that the insured failed to prove evidence of damages to business or property which rendered her Consumer Protection Act (CPA) claim unsupportable as a matter of law? NO.



1500 Fourth Avenue, Suite 200

Seattle, WA 98101




101 SW Main Street, Suite 1600

Portland, OR 97204