Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group - Personal Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

Court of Appeals: Div. I: No Common Fund Created Where Injured Person Recovers as Passenger from Both Tortfeasor’s PIP and Liability Policy

Matsyuk v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

Olga Matsyuk was injured while riding as a passenger in a car. As a passenger in the car, she was a third party beneficiary under the driver’s Personal Injury Proptection (PIP) policy. She also recovered from the driver’s liability policy. She sought attorney fees for creating a “common fund.” This was premised on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Mahler v. Szucs, Winters v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. and Hamm v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. The Court of Appeals held that no “common fund” was created in this case and, therefore, there was no equitable rationale to award attorney fees.

The Court of Appeals claimed to have adhered to its earlier decision in Young v. Teti. That case was decided before Winters and Hamm. Most assumed it was no longer good law after Winters and Hamm. The Court of Appeals noted that it had not been expressly overruled by Winters and Hamm. Look for the Supreme Court to grant review in this case.

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.