1-206-467-5444 info@letherlaw.com

Happy Thanksgiving from Lether Law Group

We are thankful for all of our clients, friends, and family! We hope everyone has a safe and wonderful holiday weekend.

In honor of the Thanksgiving spirit, a time of unity and gratitude, it’s crucial to support those in need. Since November 1st, Lether Law Group has been actively involved in a charity drive, focusing on essential items like blankets, sleeping bags, and toiletries. These vital supplies, collected from the generous contributions of our community and our employees, are set to benefit the Queen Anne Helpline. This organization is dedicated to assisting individuals facing hardships. We are committed to making a significant impact by providing these necessary items to those who need them most. To join us in this cause and make a difference, please visit the Queen Anne Helpline’s website at www.queenannehelpline.org for more information on how you can contribute.

In observance of the Thanksgiving holiday, our office will close at 12:00 PM on Wednesday, November 22nd, and will reopen for normal business hours on Monday, November 27th.

Lether Law Group Hosts the 2023 IAPL Annual General Meeting in Washington D.C.

The International Association of Practicing Lawyers (IAPL) is a select group of attorneys representing countries throughout the world.

For several years, Tom Lether has been the representative of the United States at the semiannual meetings. The IAPL presents an excellent networking opportunity for lawyers from multiple countries. More importantly, it provides an opportunity for lawyers with different cultural, religious, and geographic backgrounds to come together and discover that they all have common interests and goals. The ability to learn about legal systems around the world and exchange information in a collegial fashion with other lawyers provides incredible insight into international law.

In addition, the IAPL has become a true family of lawyers. Bonding over dinner, discussing history, politics, and legal systems in various parts of the world is an incredible experience.

This year’s 2023 IAPL annual general meeting was hosted by Lether Law Group in Washington, DC. It is the first time the IAPL has held their annual meeting in the United States for a number of years.

Washington, D.C. was a perfect setting for the IAPL. Members had an opportunity to bond over long walks to and from Georgetown, enjoy fantastic meals, experience an excellent guided tour throughout the major sites of Washington, D.C., and take a trip to the inner sanctum of the United States Supreme Court. Along the way, there were day visits to places like Alexandria and Arlington National Cemetery.

This year’s keynote speaker, Tom Lether, presented a seminar on the American legal and governmental systems, with a specific focus on the history of the debate between states’ rights advocates and those in favor of a centralized Federal Government. This presentation also discussed the never-ending dispute over how to interpret the Constitution.

This speech was presented in the context of American history and the American Civil War. Along the way, members were introduced to how these legal concepts have recently impacted the Supreme Court’s decisions in cases like the Dobbs v. Jackson decision that was cited in our newsletter.

Tom’s presentation sparked a lengthy discussion among the members about American politics and history, which underscored the importance of the IAPL organization. A link to a written version of Tom’s speech is below:

For anyone interested in the IAPL, we also invite them to follow the link below to learn more about this truly fantastic organization:

Washington Landlords and Tenants: Remaining COVID-19 Eviction Protections Lifted

The National Response to COVID-19: A Brief Overview

In early 2020, the nation was in a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Recognizing the risk of mass evictions as a result of the pandemic, many state and local governments enacted a moratorium on residential evictions. These moratoria effectively denied landlords the right to pursue an unlawful detainer (eviction) action – the only legal means of removing tenants for failure to pay rent.

Washington State’s Eviction Moratorium and the ERPP Initiative

In Washington state, an eviction moratorium was in effect from March 18, 2020, through October 31, 2021. Following the end of the moratorium, the Washington state legislature passed E2SSB 5160 authorizing the establishment of an Eviction Resolution Pilot Program (ERPP) in any county in Washington state. The ERPP was designed to facilitate dispute resolution between landlords and tenants, by connecting them with a dispute resolution specialist and resources such as rental repayment assistance. Once the eviction moratorium ended on November 1, 2022, six counties in Washington state elected to participate in the ERPP: King, Pierce, Snohomish, Clark, Spokane, and Thurston. Each program established a local Dispute Resolution Center (DRC) and operated pursuant to a standing order issued by the local superior court.

Pursuant to the ERPP, landlords in participating counties were required to provide tenants with an ERPP Notice, advising tenants of their rights under the ERPP, and a proposed repayment plan for outstanding rent amounts owed. Upon receiving an ERPP Notice and proposed repayment plan, tenants had 14 days to negotiate a proposed settlement with their landlord via the local DRC. In circumstances where the landlord and tenant failed to come to an agreement during the 14-day period, or the tenant breached the agreement, the landlord was then authorized to send the tenant a 14-day notice to pay or vacate.

The End of ERPP and Its Impact

The ERPP ended by statute on July 1, 2023. Dispute Resolution Centers statewide reported that over 78,000 cases were closed and completed during the life of the program, and 73% of these cases closed because the landlord and tenant reached an agreement. Now that the program has ended, landlords are no longer required to provide tenants with an ERPP Notice or a proposed repayment plan before proceeding with an unlawful detainer for unpaid rent.

The end of the ERPP marks the end of all remaining COVID-19 eviction protections for tenants. However, some counties in Washington state still maintain permanent eviction moratoriums during parts of the year. In Seattle, City Council Ordinance 126041 creates a defense to eviction for tenants who would have to vacate their housing between December 1 through February 28 each year. Additionally, Seattle City Council Ordinance 126369 creates a defense to evictions for anyone in school, with children in school, or working at a school during the City of Seattle Public school year, which is generally the beginning of September through mid-June.

Need Legal Assistance? Contact Lether Law Group

Lether Law Group has attorneys licensed and actively participating in eviction proceedings in Washington state. To the extent that you have any questions about Washington landlord-tenant law or eviction moratoria, please feel free to contact us by phone at (206) 467-5444 or via email at info@letherlaw.com.

Oregon to Permit Substantial Extra-Contractual Claims for Insureds

CAs of January 1, 2024, Oregon insurance law will experience a paradigm shift—for the first time, Oregon will allow insureds to present a meaningful and substantial extra-contractual claim for damages.

After the resolution of a legislative impasse that threatened to derail the entire legislative session, the Oregon State Senate returned to business this week and advanced a series of bills to the governor’s desk. Included amongst them was House Bill 3242, which amends Oregon’s Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (ORS 746.230) to allow a private right of action for insureds to recover actual damages, treble damages, attorney fees, and litigation costs for an insurer’s unreasonable conduct in violation of the act.

Oregon Governor Tina Kotek is expected to sign the bill in the coming weeks.

Once signed and in effect, an insured may bring a cause of action under ORS 746.230 for violation of the statute, which identifies familiar unfair claim settlement practices such as the following:

 

(a)        Misrepresenting facts or policy provisions in settling claims;

. . .

(d)        Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based on all available information;

. . .

(g)        Compelling claimants to initiate litigation to recover amounts due by offering substantially less than  amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by such claimants;

. . .

The statute does contain two important exceptions. The statute does not allow a suit to be brought on medical malpractice claims. The statute also specifically excludes claims against attorneys, “in the attorney’s personal capacity,” for any acts taken on behalf of an insurer.

The statute also contains a 45-day notice requirement with an opportunity to cure on the part of the insurer.

Regarding treble damages, the statute is explicit in stating that the decision whether to award treble damages rests with the “court”. This would appear to signal that, as a practical matter, trebling would be subject to post-trial motions practice. However, it should be noted that in other jurisdictions, the Federal Courts have held that trebling must be decided by a jury as a matter of United States Constitutional Law. This is an issue certain to be litigated as policyholders and insurers begin confronting the practical impacts of the new statute.

Finally, the statute will carry a two-year statute of limitations. The statute is triggered not on the date of the loss, but on the date of the alleged violation of the statute.

House Bill 3243, which would have amended Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) to create yet another private cause of action for insureds, died in committee.

Lether Law Group has attorneys licensed and actively practicing in the State of Oregon.  To the extent that you have any questions about Oregon law, please feel free to contact Tom Lether or Eric Neal at (855) 467-5444 .

Pride in Practice: Upholding Ethical Standards at Lether Law Group

As many of you are aware, there have been several recent news stories showcasing the various levels of workplace misconduct from a large national law firm. The in-depth reporting highlights the dangers of profound greed and leveraging the assistance of clients to better one’s firm. These actions are stimulated by immoral company culture and a lack of leadership.

At Lether Law, we take pride in our team-oriented ethos; each action we commit displays a vision. Whether that be our work with our clients or weekly employee softball games, everything we do at Lether Law centers around our Ohana (family).

 

 

Lether Law Group Enjoying our Annual Softball team games together.

Whenever someone steps foot into our office, the first thing they see is a giant sign relaying the company’s central message– The Canoe Theory. The principle of the message states everyone needs to show up and paddle, or the boat does not move forward. The underlying mantra also communicates that we care for each other by showing loyalty and respect.

Lether Law Group espouses the goal of Pono, which in Hawaiian means doing the right thing. We all take fulfillment in our actions of ourselves and how they reflect upon the company.

We PRIDE ourselves on being an equal opportunity employer and respect every employee’s unique qualities.

To read more blog posts from Lether Law Group, please visit our News & Updates page.

 

Washington State Court of Appeals New Decision On Covenant Judgments

On January 30, 2023, Division One of the Washington State Court of Appeals issued a published opinion further addressing covenant judgments in Washington. In Garza v. Perry, No. 83377-4-I, 2023 Wash. App. LEXIS 144, at *8 (Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2023), the Court of Appeals issued a decision primarily holding that an insurer cannot nullify a stipulated settlement based on mutual release language in the agreement because the insurer is not a party to the agreement.

The Garza case arose out of a motor vehicle accident. After failed negotiation attempts with the defendant’s insurer, the plaintiffs and defendant entered into a stipulated settlement with a covenant judgment in the amount of $2.5M and an assignment of rights against the defendant’s insurer. The settlement agreement contained a paragraph that stated the parties would mutually release each other including from the assignment of rights if the insurer provided written proof that it would fully indemnify defendant from any final judgment.  As required, the parties sent a copy of the settlement agreement to the insurer with an email offering to settle for $2.5M if paid within 10 business days.

The insurer did not agree to pay the $2.5M, but instead waived its limits and advised that it would indemnify the defendant for any judgment. Based on that letter, the insurer asserted that Plaintiffs’ and Defendant had therefore mutually released each other. The parties to the agreement disagreed and made a written addendum to their agreement to accurately reflect the actual meeting of the minds. Nevertheless, the insurer intervened and asserted that it had a valid settlement agreement with the parties.

The trial court rejected the argument and the Court of Appeals affirmed on appeal. The Court of Appeals noted that purpose of a covenant judgment is to protect the insured from the bad faith of an insurer. It does not form a contract with the insurer or for the insurer’s benefit. The Court also rejected the insurer’s argument because the agreement as a whole, including the written reformation, evidenced that the agreement was only between Plaintiffs and Defendants and also required that the intent was to only release the covenant judgment if the insurer agreed to pay the $2.5M.

The insurer also attempted to attack the trial court’s reasonableness determination on appeal based upon three arguments: 1) that the trial court had made oral statements regarding a lack of basis for the $2.5M amount at the reasonableness hearing; 2) that the Plaintiffs’ experts were not credible. and 3) that there was no substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the agreement was not the product of collusion and fraud. All three arguments were rejected on appeal.

With respect to the oral statements of the trial judge, the Court of Appeals reiterated Washington law that a trial court’s oral statements have no binding effect unless explicitly incorporated into the court’s written order. The statements at issue were not incorporated into the order and, as such, were treated as having no import on the case.

The second and third arguments were effectively rejected for the same reason. Specifically, they were rejected because the substantial evidence review standard for review of reasonableness hearings requires the appellate court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.  

The bad faith evidence argument was rejected because there was evidence that the settlement agreement was subject to review, revisions, and input by independent coverage counsel. The credibility argument was also rejected because a factfinder’s credibility determination are not subject to review under the substantial evidence standard.

The Garza case provides a two main takeaways for any insurer facing a covenant judgment. First, collateral attacks on the language of the covenant judgment settlement agreement are unlikely to prevail because an insurer is not a party to the agreement. Second, the standard of appellate review for reasonableness hearings is a difficult standard to overcome on appeal.

Because of this, an insurer that fails to fully develop the record at a reasonableness hearing runs the significant risk of being unable to successfully challenge a reasonableness finding on appeal. As a result, insurers need to be fully prepared to fully present their case at any reasonableness hearing. Moreover, insurers and insurer counsel should specifically request that the judge explicitly incorporate any helpful oral statements into its final order.

Lether Law Group has been successfully defending insurers against covenant judgments before the trial court and on appeal for more than 30 years. If you would like to discuss covenant judgment defense or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.