1122 W. James Street | Kent, WA 98032

Contact Us Kent: 253.850.6411

Seattle: 206.343.4841 | Tacoma: 877.778.9680 | Everett: 877.788.9680

Submission of information to us through this contact form does not create an attorney-client relationship, so please do not submit any confidential information. If we are to serve as your attorneys, all fees and the nature of our representation will be set forth in a written agreement.

Seattle: 206.343.4841 | Tacoma: 877.778.9680 | Everett: 877.788.9680

  • Please leave the best phone number where you can be reached.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Close FormPrintable Map & Info


Attorneys at Law

New Case Law in Roadway Design Cases, Lowman v. Wilbur

We have litigated a number of cases where some or all of the claims in the case involve issues of negligence of a city or county for roadway design. Recently, the Washington Supreme Court issued an opinion expanding this area of the law, and in the opinion (called Lowman v. Wilbur), the change is a positive development for plaintiffs in this area of law. Lowman builds on the existing Washington case of Keller v. City


What To Do When Sustaining Two Automobile Collisions Close In Time

It happens more frequently than people would realize where an individual is injured in an automobile accident, and then within a year or two or even less, he or she sustains additional injuries in another automobile accident. In a straightforward motor vehicle accident case with one accident, one injured party (the plaintiff), and one defendant (the at-fault driver), the litigation posture is simple. Take a rear-end collision, for example. In a rear-end collision, fault is


Washington Court of Appeals clarifies UIM Statute in Ochoa

A case was recently decided by the Washington Court of Appeal (Division I in Seattle), called Ochoa v. Progressive, whereby the court clarified certain points of law pertaining to Washington state’s underinsured motorist (UIM) statute. In Ochoa, a plaintiff was injured while driving her motor vehicle by another driver who was delivering pizzas for a pizza restaurant.  It was determined in the trial court that the plaintiff was not at fault in the collision.  With


Stedman v. Cooper Re-examines Tencer Testimony

Another case was decided in the Washington Court of Appeals late last year regarding the testimony of Dr. Allan Tencer.  The disputes between plaintiffs and defendants in personal injury cases over Dr. Tencer’s testimony are no stranger to trial courts and appellate courts in the state of Washington. The general dispute goes like this: First, there is a plaintiff who has been injured in some way.  It is usually an automobile accident, but presumably it


Intersection of Worker’s Comp and Private Tort Suits

A recent case of interest from Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals is entitled Orris v. Lingley (288 P.3d 1159). This was a case where the appellate court reviewed the summary judgment dismissal of a tort suit in the trial court, arising from an accident that occurred with two co-workers while driving their employer’s automobile.  What made the case interesting was the interaction of worker’s compensation law with the law of private tort


Dealing with Subsequent Remedial Measures in Litigation

A recent case in Division II of the Court of Appeals of Washington, called Pupo v. Albertson’s, Inc., reminded us of the importance of properly litigating in the context of a defendant’s subsequent remedial measures after slip-and-fall injuries or really any type of personal injury. When a plaintiff is injured and then later brings a lawsuit; frequently, at some point in that interim, the defendant will take steps to fix or “remedy” whatever may have