 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rasmussen v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America3/14/2005
UNPUBLISHED
A trial court abuses its discretion if it dismisses a case as a sanction for discovery violations without first considering on the record whether the violations were willful, whether a less severe sanction would be adequate, or whether the discovery violations prejudiced the other party. Because there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's dismissal of Sandra Rasmussen's complaint against SAFECO Insurance Co., we affirm the summary judgment to that extent. However, because the record contains no basis for dismissing Rasmussen's complaint against AllPro Construction, Inc., we reverse the order with respect to that defendant.
Rasmussen made a claim under her policy with SAFECO Insurance Company of America for water damage to her home. Rasmussen chose AllPro Construction to make the needed repairs. Disputes arose among the parties regarding the quality of AllPro's repairs, and AllPro eventually withdrew its bid without completing the work. Disputes also arose between Rasmussen and SAFECO over Rasmussen's cooperation with the claims process and with SAFECO's handling of Rasmussen's claim. Eventually, Rasmussen sued SAFECO for various claims, including breach of contract, bad faith denial of the insurance claim, Consumer Protection Act violations, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
SAFECO propounded discovery to Rasmussen, including interrogatories and requests for production. Rasmussen failed to fully and timely respond to both SAFECO's first and second set of interrogatories and requests for production. She responded to the first request only after SAFECO moved to compel. In addition, during her deposition, she refused to answer many of the questions SAFECO asked regarding the factual bases of her claims. Amidst these discovery motions, SAFECO moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Rasmussen had failed to demonstrate that, under her policy, she was entitled to any further recovery than she had already received. SAFECO requested the court to dismiss all of Rasmussen's claims or, in the alternative, to dismiss the extra-contractual claims and order the contractual claims to proceed to appraisal pursuant to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
The trial court stayed the lawsuit pending the appraisal, but declined to rule on the dismissal request. Following SAFECO's motion for reconsideration or clarification, the trial court entered an order naming SAFECO's appraiser, ordering Rasmussen to make her property available for inspection, and reserving ruling on the dismissal motion pending the appraisal's outcome. It also ordered Rasmussen to provide full and complete discovery responses and ordered her to pay $500 in sanctions to SAFECO.
A month later, SAFECO filed its first Motion to Dismiss for Rasmussen's refusal to comply with the court's order. The trial court subsequently entered a second order, directing Rasmussen to comply with its previous compliance order. It also reserved ruling on SAFECO's motion for additional sanctions, up to and including dismissal.
More than seven months after the court issued its second compliance order, SAFECO again moved to have Rasmussen's complaint dismissed for her failure to comply with the court's orders.
Following the appraisal hearing, the trial court dismissed all of Rasmussen's claims with prejudice as a sanction for violating the discovery rules and disregarding the court's orders. Rasmussen appeals.
CONSIDERATION OF ADEQUACY OF LESSER SANCTIONS
Rasmussen contends that the trial court abused its discretion by resorting to the harsh sanction of dismissal without considering the imposition of lesser sanctio
Page 1 2 3 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|