Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Lathrop et al - Ryan Hall and Emma Philbrook succeed in summary judgment for declaratory relief, finding that the insurance company had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured in a lawsuit where the insured shot and caused injury to another. The insured claimed self-defense and that his homeowner’s insurance should provide coverage.  The insurance company prevailed in establishing that the policy excluded coverage when intentional battery is involved, thereby establishing, as a matter of law, that there was no duty under the policy to defend or indemnify the insured.  The Court further ruled that the insured was collaterally estopped from re-litigating the merits of his self-defense claims.

Woodin v. Valley Plumbing & Electric, Inc. and Marker Construction, Inc. | Marker Construction, Inc., v. JW Creations, LLC. - Rory Leid and Sarah Yoon successfully prevailed on summary judgment on behalf of JW Creations, LLC, obtaining complete dismissal of all third-party claims asserted by Marker Construction. Marker Construction attempted to shift liability to JW Creations, the property owner, by alleging that JW exercised control over the subcontractor, Valley Plumbing. The Court ruled that JW Creations was not an entity to whom fault could be attributed under RCW 4.22.070 and dismissed all of Marker’s equitable indemnity and fault-shifting claims with prejudice.

Huynh v. Granwest - Rory Leid and Dylan Knapp successfully prevailed on summary judgment dismissing all of the insured’s extracontractual bad faith claims. The court found that Granwest never denied coverage or payment on the insured’s UIM claim. The court found that Granwest’s investigation was reasonable based on Granwest’s investigation and that the parties had a reasonable value dispute as to the value of the insured’s UIM claim.

Allstate v. Richardson - Rory Leid and Dylan Knapp successfully prevailed on a First-Party Fraud case. The court granted Allstate’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the insured had mispresented the business nature of the property when the insured submitted his insurance application. The court found that the insured’s misrepresentation was knowing, material, and made with the intent to deceive Allstate, and that pursuant to the insured’s insurance policy, his policy was void, and Allstate had no duty to indemnify the insured for the fire loss that occurred. The court’s finding of fraud eliminated all of the insured’s extracontractual claims.

Betancourt v. Allstate et al, - Insured brought suit against Allstate and personally named an Adjuster, claiming purported delays in the claims handling process and allegations that the Adjuster was personally liable for purported CPA violations and negligence.  Ryan Hall was successful in a Partial Summary Judgment Motion, resulting in the dismissal of all claims asserted against the Adjuster.

Grimes v. Brady - Suit was brought by the guest of a tenant against a landlord for injuries sustained while attending a party.  Plaintiff was seeking over $5 million in damages for burns acquired at this party. Ryan Hall prevailed in Summary Judgment dismissal of all claims.   Upon appeal by Plaintiff, Ryan Hall prevailed in appellate arguments, and the Summary Judgment Order was ultimately affirmed by Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II.

 McLellan v. Amfam and Lopez - A suit was filed by an insured against American Family and an American Family Agent. Claims included UIM, agent negligence, and alleged violations of CPA with damages totaling $1.5 million.  Ryan Hall won on Summary Judgment with dismissal of all claims. 

Yancey v. Trees Homeowners’ Association - Plaintiff, an HOA Member, filed suit seeking to invalidate an amendment to the operating governing documents regarding rentals.  Ryan Hall succeeded in Summary Judgment with dismissal of all claims.

Peters v. Association of King City Condominium Unit Owners - Condo owner sues Association of Condominium Unit Owners for claims of breach of contract, negligence in inspection and repair of premises, and specific performance with damages of $15,000.00 plus costs and fees. Ryan Hall won on Summary Judgment with dismissal of all Claims.

Progressive v. Vazquez - Gabrielle Fillis and Rory Leid achieved a dismissal with prejudice and without recovery in an action to recover property damages arising from an October 2021 motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff (Progressive), in its capacity as subrogee of its own insured, filed suit against Defendant (“Ms. Vazquez”) in October 2024, mere days before the statute of limitations for the action ran. However, Progressive “served” Ms. Vazquez electronically, a method of service that is not authorized under Washington law. As such, service of process on Ms. Vazquez was not perfected as required by law. Further, because the statute of limitations had long passed by the time the 90-day service window closed, the action was now time-barred and could not be re-filed.

Lock v. American Family Insurance Company, No.  103816-0 (Supreme Court, June 4, 2025) -Kimberly Larsen Rider and Rory W. Leid, III, successfully prevailed on the most recent review of this matter in the Supreme Court of Washington. Appellant Lock filed a Petition for Review on January 23, 2025. Respondent American Family’s Answer and Cross-Petition argued that there was no basis for review. The Supreme Court agreed with American Family and issued an Order denying Lock’s Petition for Review on June 4, 2025. Furthermore, as American Family was the prevailing party in the previous appeal in the Court of Appeals Division I, they were entitled to make a claim for costs pursuant to RAP 14.4. American Family filed a Cost Bill for around $10,000 of filing fees and fees for Clerk’s Papers. Lock filed an untimely objection to the Cost Bill. The Court denied the objection and ordered Lock to pay the costs in the amount of nearly $10,000 to American Family.

Jiang v. Westin, January 2025 - Rory Leid, III, assisted by Reeya Patel, prevailed on a motion for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s (“Mr. Jiang”) time-barred claim for personal injuries arising out of a March 2021 motor vehicle accident in King County Superior Court.

Pursuant to RCW 4.16.080(2), personal injury claims must be initiated within three (3) years of the date of the subject incident. Plaintiffs must, therefore, file and serve their lawsuit within the three (3) years. Mr. Jiang did not file the lawsuit until July 2024 or serve the Defendant until August 2024. Relying on the unambiguous language of the statute, the Court dismissed the lawsuit, holding that Mr. Jiang had filed and served the Complaint well beyond the statutory time period allowed.

Lock v. American Family Insurance Company, No. 85844-1-I (Division 1, Court of Appeals, Dec. 23, 2024) - Kimberly Larsen Rider and Rory W. Leid, III successfully prevailed by defending the Jury Verdict in this UIM bad faith case.  Ms. Rider and Mr. Leid obtained a very favorable Jury Verdict, which was appealed by the plaintiff’s counsel, Vonda Sargent.  The second jury trial involved a UIM alleged bad faith conduct when a check was mistakenly sent directly to Ms. Lock by American Family.  The trial judge found bad faith as a matter of law, and the only question for the jury was damages.  The plaintiff asked the jury to award at least $800,000.  The jury returned a verdict of $40,000.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict ending the appeal.

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.  

GEIC0 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.

First American Insurance Company v. Wolverton et al, 3:23-cv-05228-TMC - Court Finds No Duty to DefendRory Leid 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 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 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.