Cole, Wathen, Leid, & Hall, P.C.

Dismissal of Claims Against Allstate 

Rory W. Leid, III, assisted by Arezou Arefi-Afshar, represented Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company in the insurance bad faith lawsuit, Taylor v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company.

CWLH Attorneys Successfully Represent Allstate Indemnity Company in an Insurance Bad Faith Claim 

Rory W. Leid, III and Arezou Arefi-Afshar successfully represented Allstate Indemnity Company in an insurance bad faith claim, Newkirk et al v. Allstate.

CWLH Attorneys Successfully Represent Allstate Indemnity Company in an Insurance Bad Faith Claim 

Rory W. Leid, III and Arezou Arefi-Afshar successfully represented Allstate Indemnity Company in an insurance bad faith claim, Newkirk et al v. Allstate.

Loss Reserves are Protected as Work Product in IFCA Case 

Rory W. Leid, III, assisted by Kimberly Larsen Rider, represented American Family Insurance Company in the insurance bad faith lawsuit, Theresa L. Schreib v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.

UIM Arbitration Award Not Proper Measure of IFCA Damages 

Rory W. Leid, III, assisted by Kimberly Larsen Rider, represented American Family Insurance Company in the insurance bad faith lawsuit, Theresa L. Schreib v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.

Excess Verdict Not Proper Measure of IFCA Damages 

Rory W. Leid, III, assisted by Jean Y. Kang, represented GEICO General Insurance Company in the insurance bad faith lawsuit, Ross, et. al. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., et al.

Marion County Cases - Defense Verdict Rejecting PIP Suit for Medical Bills and Attorney Fees 

Ryan J. Hall represented Farmers Insurance in Nancy Reyes v. Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon.

Arbitration Panel Awards Complete Defense Verdict with No Award of Fees or Costs 

Ryan J. Hall represented Farmers Insurance in Omar DeLeon Gomez v. Farmers Insurance Company which was a PIP arbitration panel demand from opposing counsel.

Court Upholds PIP Suit Limitation Provision – Grants Directed Verdict Against Chiropractic Clinic 

Ryan J. Hall represented Allstate Insurance Company in Auto & Work Injury, LLC v. Allstate et al.

Multnomah County Case – Defense Verdict Rejecting PIP Suit for Medical Bills and Attorney Fees 

Ryan J. Hall represented Allstate Insurance in Luis Baez-Hernandez et al. v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company.

Defense Verdict 

Mr. Leid recently obtained a defense verdict in a weeklong jury trial in Mason County Superior Court.

Appeal of Attorney Fee Award 

Attorney fee award overturned on appeal creating new law in Washington State.

New Offices for Cole Wathen Leid Hall P.C. 

We are pleased to announce our new office location, effective November 18, 2013.

Jury Awards Less Than Medical Specials in Admitted Liability Case 

Mark S. Cole assisted by Jennifer P. Dinning represented the Defendants in a case which arose out of a motor vehicle accident in which Defendants Tharp rear-ended the Plaintiff. April 8, 2013.

Insurance Policy Time Limit Leads to Dismissal of Contractual Claims 

Mark S. Cole represented Western National in the case of Jeffries v. Western National Assurance Company, which arose out of a fire to a residence owned by Plaintiff Jeffries. April 5, 2013.

Jury Again Awards Less Than Medical Specials in an Admitted Liability Case 

Mark S. Cole, assisted by Jennifer P. Dinning, represented Defendants in Hudson v. Jensen, a case which arose out of an accident where Defendant Jensen rear-ended the Plaintiff’s pick-up truck. April 4, 2013.

Jury Trial Defense Verdict 

Rory W. Leid, III tried this case which involved a three car accident, including a FedEx vehicle and a semi-truck. April 3, 2013.

Contentious Discovery Battle With Suspected Arsonist Leads to Complete 

Ryan J. Hall represented Allstate Insurance Company in the case of Terrance I. Ross – Joyner and Dominique D. Joyner  v. Allstate et al. April 2, 2013.

Arbitrator Hands Down Rare Defense Verdict in Personal Injury Protection Suit 

Ryan J. Hall represented Allstate Insurance Company in the case of Ivan Rodriguez, Narcisa Onofre and Narcisa Onofre. April 1, 2013.

CWLH Obtains Defense Verdict in Traumatic Brain Injury Case 

Rick Wathen represented the Defendants, the Kelleys, and was assisted by Midori R. Sagara. February 4, 2013.

Can a Tenant be Sued by the Landlord's Insurer? 

Mark S. Cole and Rory W. Leid, III, were retained by American Family to represent the defendant tenants. December 4, 2012.

CWLH Obtains Judgment on Behalf of Private Lender  

Rick Wathen represented the private lender. September 7, 2012.

Court of Appeals EUO as a Condition Precedent to Filing Suit

Staples v. Allstate, Case No. 64816-1. Rory W. Leid, III, argued for Respondent Allstate and was assisted by Midori R. Sagara. May 16, 2011.

Court of Appeals Rules that Service on a Private Mailbox is Insufficient

Goettenmoeller v. Twist, Case No. 64046-1-1. Rory W. Leid, III , argued for Appellant Twist and was assisted by Midori R. Sagara. April 11, 2011.

News & Press

Court of Appeals Rules that Service on a Private Mailbox is Insufficient

Goettenmoeller v. Twist, Case No. 64046-1-1. Rory W. Leid, III , argued for Appellant Twist and was assisted by Midori R. Sagara.

On April 11, 2011, in a published opinion, Division One of the Washington State Court of Appeals rules that service on a private mailbox is insufficient service under RCW 4.28.080(16) when the mailbox is not the defendant's usual mailing address. Goettemoeller v. Twist, Case No. 64046-1-I. Judge C. Kenneth Grosse authored the opinion, and Judges Michael S. Spearman and Stephen J. Dwyer concurred.

In 2001, the Twists moved from England to Washington, and obtained a private mailbox at “The Mailbox” in Lynden, Washington. In June 2005, Mr. Twist was involved in a motor vehicle accident with the Goettemoellers. In January 2006, the Twists returned to England. On September 29, 2006, the Goettemoellers filed a complaint against the Twists. The parties filed cross motions on the issue of service. Despite the evidence that the Twists did not use the private mailbox at the time of attempted service, the trial court ruled in favor of the Goettemoellers. The Twists moved for discretionary review.

The Court of Appeals found that the private mailbox was not the Twists' usual mailing address at the time of attempted service. The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from Wright v. B&L Properties, Inc. In contrast to the defendant in Wright, there was no evidence that the Twists used the private mailbox at the time of attempted service. When the Twists returned to England, they made no arrangements to have mail forwarded from the private mailbox.

The Twists provided evidence of their mailing address in England, where they received pension checks and utility statements. The Mailbox provided a declaration that since January 2007, it had not received any mail for the Twists. Payment for the private mailboxes were made annually, and there was no evidence regarding the method of payment or who made the payment.

The Court of Appeals stated that “by analogy, under RCW 4.28.080(16), a person may have more than one “usual mailing address". But...there must be more than the existence of a mailing address. A "usual mailing address‟ must mean some level of actual use...” No such evidence existed in this case. The Court of Appeals specifically rejected the Goettemoellers' argument that the Twists attempted to evade service. The Court of Appeals stated that the Twists were under no obligation to assist in effectuating service. The Court of Appeals' April 11, 2011, opinion clarified and heightened the burden on a plaintiff to effectuate substitute service under RCW 4.28.080(16).