Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Washington Public Policy & Budget News : Evergreen Freedom Foundation : WA State Tax & Labor Law Commentary & Updates

Cambridge Townhomes v. Pacific Star Roofing, No. 81003-6. Polygon Northwest Company, the general contractor for a condominium development, settled allegations of construction defects with the homeowners association and then sued various subcontractors for breach of contract and indemnification. One of these subcontractors, P.J. Interprise, had been owned by Gerald Utley and disolved in chapter 7 bankruptcy. Polygon had listed only P.J. Interprise and not Utley in its original complaint and the trial court refused to allow Polygon to amend the complaint and pursue a claim against Utley. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Stephens, the Court upholds a decision of the Court of Appeals that had reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of defendants. (Briefs and argument)

Campbell v. Ticor Title Insurance Co., No. 80999-2. A parcel of land was subdivided into three, with a pedestrian easement across lot B. The easement allows owners of lot C to access a dock on Deer Lake. Lot C was sold and the new owner subsequently discovered that a home on lot B blocked the easement. The owner filed various suits, including one to force a new easement on lot A. The Campbells, owners of lot A, claim that their title insurance company, Ticor Title, has a duty to defend them in the suit. Here the Court, in another unanimous opinion by Justice Stephens, upholds the trial and appeals courts, holding that "[Ticor's] policy plainly excludes easements not disclosed by th epublic record or arising after the date the policy issues. Accordingly, there is no conceivable coverage of the Campbells's claims and Ticor owes no duty to defend." (Briefs and argument)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sanders v. State, No. 80393-5. In a 5-4 decision by a panel of pro tem justices (judges drawn from lower appellate courts to act as State Supreme Court justices in this case only), the Court upholds an appeals court decision that the State is not obligated to pay for a judge's defense in an ethics case if the judge "knows or should know that the conduct of which he or she is accused is unethical and therefore not an official act."

In 2003, Justice Richard Sanders visited the Special Commitment Center (SCC) on McNeil Island, a State facility where certain convicted sex offenders were being held. A complaint was filed with the Commission on Judicial Conduct alleging that Justice Sanders talked with SCC residents who had cases pending before the Washington State Supreme Court. In 2005, the Commission held that Justice Sanders had violated Canons 1 and 2(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

During the Commission's investigation, Justice Sanders asked the attorney general to provide him with a defense at public expense, citing RCW 43.10.030 and .040, which charges the attorney general with the duty to defend state officers in their official capacity. The attorney general refused, and Justice Sanders filed suit. A superior court judge dismissed the action, was upheld on appeal, and is upheld today. One dissent challenges that the majority fails to enforce the plain meaning of the statute or to create a workable framework for deciding future cases; a second dissent faults the majority for "improperly rel[ying] on the outcome of the underlying case as the basis for its decision." (case briefs and argument)

Chadwick Farms Owners Association v. FHC, LLC, No. 80450-8 and Emily Lane Homeowners Ass’n v. Colonial Dev., LLC, No. 80459-1 (consolidated). Can a Limited Liability Corporation sue or be sued after its certificate of formation is canceled? No, says the Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Madsen, after cancellation an LLC ceases to exist as a legal entity and can neither sue nor be sued. These consolidated cases arose when homeowners associations sued the LLCs that had built their communities but had subsequently been canceled. While the LLCs no longer exist, however, the Court holds that the LLC members may be sued based on the same veil-piercing provisions that would apply while the LLC remained in existance. Justice Charles Johnson, joined by three other justices, dissents. (case briefs and argument)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link