When disaster struck at a public utility district’s hydro-electric generation facility, the district’s London-based Difference in Conditions insurers and their national counsel turned to us for help with the coverage, damage, and priority issues that arose when claims for the loss were made under both DIC coverage and all-risk property insurance coverage. We helped shepherd the matter through declaratory judgment litigation in federal court in the Western District of Washington, a multi-week formal appraisal hearing, and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, resulting in a complete vindication of our clients’ coverage positions.
A national industrial insurer provided umbrella liability coverage to a local solvents processor who was liable for pollution claims under the Model Toxic Controls Act. Near the end of a long and complicated course of claims, litigation, remediation, and other activity, the umbrella insurer was faced with competing claimants to its near-exhausted coverage limits, as well as allegations of extra-contractual liability from several competing insureds and purported insureds. The umbrella insurer turned to us for assistance, which took the form of immediately filing an interpleader and declaratory judgment action in federal court to resolve the competing claims to coverage and to head off further allegations of wrongdoing. With that in place, we then were able to resolve the remaining claims in a comprehensive mediation ordered by the court.
An employee of a local construction company drove a company truck to various job sites, and also to and from home each day. The employee took the truck to his church’s camp one summer, and while there allowed another person at camp to drive the truck. When that driver hit a young boy, the family of the boy, the personal insurer of the driver, and the personal insurer of the employee all looked to our client, the liability insurer of the construction company that owned the truck, to provide primary coverage. We were able to obtain a ruling that, regardless of the employee having granted permission to the driver, our client owed no coverage under the terms of its policy because its insured, the construction company itself, had not expressly or impliedly given permission to the driver to drive the truck.
Mike Ricketts also devotes a substantial portion of his practice to appeals. Representative appellate cases in which he was involved include the following decisions: Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, et al., 165 Wn.2d 373, 198 P.3d 493. Ambach v. French, 141 Wn. App. 782; 173 P.3d 941. Wilcox v. Lexington Eye Institute, 130 Wh. App. 234, 122 P.3d 729. Olympic Pipe Line Co. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 128 Wn.App. 1003, 2005 WL 1406125. Spokane County v. Specialty Auto and Truck Painting, Inc., 153 Wn.2d 238, 103 P.3d 792. Olympic Pipe Line Co. v. Somerset Marine, Inc., 124 Wn. App. 1004. Puget Sound Energy, Inc. v. Alba General Ins. Co., 149 Wn.2d 135, 68 P.3d 1061. Port of Seattle v. Lexington Ins. Co., 111 Wn. App. 901, 48 P.3d 334. M. A. Mortenson Co., Inc. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568, 998 P.2d 305, 41 UCC Rep. Serv.2d 357. Aluminum Co. of America v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 140 Wn.2d 517, 998 P.2d 856. Hillhaven Properties, Ltd. v. Sellen Constr. Co., Inc., 133 Wn.2d 751, 948 P.2d 796. Sunbreaker Condominium Assoc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 79 Wn. App. 368, 901 P.2d 1079.