This case concerned a dispute over coverage under a builders' risk insurance policy for damage from the collapse of a newly poured concrete floor during a condominium construction project in Tacoma, Washington. The collapse was attributed to a combination of marginal shoring design and installation problems, which the policy excluded as faulty workmanship, but the policy also contained an ensuing or resulting loss provision. The trial court entered judgment for the insured after a jury verdict, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a determination of efficient proximate cause. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that coverage existed under the resulting loss clause because the collapse itself was not an excluded event and the insurer was barred from raising a new ground for denial. The court reinstated the trial court's judgment and awarded attorney fees to the insured.
The principal issue in these consolidated cases was whether certifications from state agencies attesting to the existence or nonexistence of public records, such as driving records, constitute testimonial statements under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. The court determined that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts rendered such certifications testimonial, requiring the opportunity for confrontation, and therefore overruled its prior contrary holdings in State v. Kirkpatrick and State v. Kronich. In application, the admission of these certifications violated the defendants' confrontation rights in the cases of Jasper, Cienfuegos, and Moimoi. The court concluded that the violations were not harmless with respect to most convictions and accordingly reversed those convictions while remanding for new trials, except for the hit-and-run conviction in State v. Jasper.
The case concerned Harry Carrier's untimely personal restraint petition challenging his mandatory life sentence under Washington's Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA) two-strikes provision, based on his 2004 guilty plea to first-degree child molestation. Carrier argued that his 1981 indecent liberties conviction, which had been dismissed under former RCW 9.95.240, was improperly counted as a qualifying strike offense in his criminal history. The Washington Supreme Court held that the 1985 dismissal order attached to the petition could be considered in assessing whether the judgment and sentence was valid on its face, allowing review despite the one-year time bar. The court concluded that a dismissed conviction cannot be included as a POAA strike, rendering the life sentence invalid.
This case concerned a personal restraint petition filed by Washington inmate Chad Pierce challenging the Department of Corrections' deductions from his inmate trust account for costs of incarceration and legal financial obligations (LFOs), despite the sentencing court's waiver of incarceration costs and a payment schedule for LFOs tied to his release. The Washington Supreme Court held that the Department possesses independent statutory authority under provisions like RCW 72.09.111 and RCW 72.09.480 to make such deductions regardless of the judgment and sentence terms. The court further ruled that the Department may collect LFOs during confinement without issuing a notice of payroll deduction beforehand. It therefore dismissed the petition, concluding Pierce failed to demonstrate unlawful restraint.
This case involved a class action lawsuit by David Moeller against Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, claiming that the auto insurance policy required payment for the diminished market value of a vehicle after it was damaged in an accident and repaired. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the policy language covers diminished value and that the class was properly certified. The court reasoned that the policy's provisions for "loss" and limits of liability, including repair or replacement with property of "like kind and quality," encompass compensation for the reduction in value post-repair, not merely the cost of physical repairs.
The case concerned whether evidence of cocaine possession against Gilberto Ibarra-Cisneros should be suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful warrantless search of his brother's home and subsequent use of the brother's seized cell phone. Officers answered the cell phone, arranged a meeting, followed Ibarra-Cisneros, and recovered a bindle of cocaine near him; both brothers sought suppression in a consolidated hearing, but the trial court denied the motions. The Court of Appeals held the home search illegal and reversed the brother's conviction but affirmed Ibarra-Cisneros's on grounds that any connection was too attenuated. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the attenuation analysis was inadequate and that the brothers' suppression claims had been treated as rising or falling together without separate findings on issues such as Terry stops or open-view seizure.