You Didn’t Start the Fire, but Does that Mean the Insurer has to Pay Out?
From the desk of Melanie Rose: Oregon denies a plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract related to fire insurance and ultimately grants the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment. Claims Pointer: Here, a defendant insurance carrier investigated a claim related…Read more »
Washington’s Made Whole Doctrine Majorly Expanded
From the desk of Josh Hayward: Washington’s Made Whole Doctrine establishes that a person with insurance must be fully reimbursed for their losses, or “made whole,” before the person’s insurance company can take from any third-party recovery proceeds to recoup…Read more »
4th and 10… An Improbable Comeback Win at the Washington Court of Appeals
Claims Alleged: Appeal from Summary Judgment Dismissal of Adverse Possession and Prescriptive Easement Claims The Overview: Smith Freed Eberhard partner, Ashley Nagrodski, and associate, Jessica Kamish, achieved a compelling win for their clients in the Washington Court of Appeals when the…Read more »
Oregon Supreme Court Issues Final Determination – Oregon’s $500,000 Noneconomic Damages Cap is Gone, at Least for Those Not Gone.
From the desk of Jeff Eberhard: Hear Ye Hear Ye! Read all about it. The Oregon Supreme Court has issued a landmark opinion addressing once and for all a topic of heated debate between Oregon’s plaintiff and defense bars. No…Read more »
When Good Lawyers go Bad: Washington Supreme Court Defines “Substantially Related” Within The Washington Rules of Professional Conduct
From the desk of Gordon C. Klug: It should come as no surprise that a lawyer is prohibited from representing a new client where that new client’s interests are adverse to the interests of a former client and the matters…Read more »
Oregon Case Law Update: Oregon Supreme Court Limits Claims Based on Abuse of Vulnerable Persons
Oregon Case Law Update: Oregon Supreme Court Limits Claims Based on Abuse of Vulnerable Persons From the desk of Bill Taaffe: Oregon’s statute on abuse of vulnerable persons (ORS 124.110)—here, elderly persons—provides plaintiffs with a claim against a person who wrongfully,…Read more »
Recent Landmark Decisions on the Noneconomic Damages Cap in Oregon
Join Smith Freed Eberhard Managing Partner Jeff Eberhard and Partner Bill Taaffe as they provide a historical overview of the statutory noneconomic damages cap and discuss the future of the cap following recent landmark decisions by the Oregon Court of…Read more »
Utilizing Probability Analysis in Claims Evaluation: A Systematic Approach
Smith Freed Eberhard Partner Josh Hayward as he discusses utilizing decision trees and probability analysis to evaluate claims. In this one hour presentation will discuss the methods and advantages to utilizing decision trees to evaluate claims, including: What decision trees…Read more »
Oregon Case Law Update: Safe Harbor Letter Not a Sure Thing
Oregon Case Law Update: Safe Harbor Letter Not a Sure Thing From the Desk of Joshua P. Hayward: Under ORS 742.061, a first party plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees if they recover on a first party claim. An…Read more »
Discovery in the Information Age – Using Technology and Data to More Effectively Defend and Settle Your Claims
Smith Freed Eberhard Partner Bill Taaffe demonstrates how you can use technology and data to more effectively defend and settle your claims. Bill discusses: How to leverage social media to uncover and undermine claimsWhy email is a double-edged swordThe truth…Read more »
OR Case Update: Is the UM/UIM Safe Harbor Waived when an Insurer Disputes all Damages and an Insured is Awarded Zero Dollars?
In an action based on an uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) motorist policy, does a “safe harbor” letter sent by the insurance company guarantee that some amount of damages must be awarded to its insured? Find out in this week’s case update. Claims…Read more »
WA Case Update: UIM Coverage: A Broad Interpretation of Injuries “Arising out of” Vehicle Use
From the desk of Kyle Riley: When does an injury “arise out of” vehicle use for UIM coverage purposes? Claims Pointer: In order to provide a clear rule to determine when an injury “arises out of” vehicle use for the…Read more »
OR Case Update: Who Can Testify About What in Low-Impact Auto Accident Cases?
Can a medical expert testify about emotional overlay? Can a biomechanical expert testify about the effect of crash speeds on the human body? Find out in this follow-up to last week’s update on an important Oregon Court of Appeals opinion.…Read more »
OR Case Update: First-Party UIM Claims at Trial: Can You Exclude Policy Limits?
In the unlikely event that a first-party underinsured motorist (UIM) case goes to trial, it is often advantageous to make a motion before trial to exclude mention of insurance policies and policy limits. However, this strategy is not always available--as…Read more »
Whose Fault is it Anyway?
SFE Attorney: Cliff Wilson Plaintiff Attorney: Paul Galm City, Co., State: Washington County Circuit Court, Oregon Claims Alleged: Personal Injury and Property Damage Injuries Alleged: Soft Tissue Admitted Liability: No Amount Claimed: $16,505.53 The Overview Team Cliff Wilson recently won…Read more »
OR Case Update: Alcohol and Violence: Is Saying “That’s Just the Alcohol Talking” Enough to Prevail?
From the desk of Jeffrey D. Eberhard: In a dram shop claim, the injured plaintiff sues the person or business who served alcohol to the person that harmed the plaintiff. In the following dram shop case, the Oregon Supreme Court…Read more »
OR Case Update: No Prior Incident Required: Civil Liability for Criminal Acts of Third Parties (Part II)
From the desk of Jeffrey D. Eberhard: In the conclusion of this special two-part update, we discuss an important question brought before the Oregon Court of Appeals: Can a national organization be liable for the negligence of a local chapter,…Read more »
OR Case Update: No Prior Incident Required: Civil Liability for Criminal Acts of Third Parties (Part I)
From the desk of Jeffrey D. Eberhard: It is a bedrock principle of premises liability law that businesses and individuals alike owe a duty to protect customers and guests from foreseeable harm, which may also include harm from foreseeable criminal…Read more »