The Supreme Court today sustains the lower court, holding that "Alea's failure to defend based upon a questionable interpretation of law was unreasonable and Alea acted in bad faith as a matter of law." Justice Chambers wrote for the five-member majority. Justice Owens, with three other justices, dissented as to the finding of bad faith. (briefs, argument)

Columbia Physical Therapy v. Benton Franklin Orthopedic Associates, No. 81734-1. Are physical therapists engaged in the practice of medicine? Benton Franklin Orthopedic Associates (BFOA) refers many of its patients to Benton Franklin Physical Therapy (BFPT), which it also controls through common ownership. Columbia, one of BFPT's competitors, sued alleging violations of the corporate practice of medicine doctrine (link to PDF), The Professional Services Corporation Act (PSCA) (RCW 18.100), the antirebate statute (RCW 19.68), and the Consumer Protection Act (RCW 19.86). The trial court granted BFOA summary judgment on the PSCA claim and certified the other issues to the Court of Appeals, which denied review.

The Court today holds that physical therapy is included in the definition of the practice of medicine. The Court upholds the grant of summary judgment on the PSCA claim and directs the trial court to enter summary judgment also in BFOA's favor on the corporate practice of medicine and antirebate statute claims. Because Columbia did assert facts that, if proven, would constitute breaches of the CPA, the Court upholds the trial court's refusal to grant summary judgment on the issue and remands for trial. Justice Owens wrote for the unanimous Court. (briefs--including 28 amicus briefs, 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)