Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
Full Text
1,701 charsDellen failed to pay any assessments. We hold that substantial evidence supports the Board' s and the superior court' s findings that Dellen' s letter expressed its intent to default and that Dellen' s subsequent actions were 31 consistent with its expressed intent to default. We further hold that the superior court' s findings support its conclusions of law that Dellen defaulted on its obligations as a self -insured employer and that its actions did not qualify as a termination under RCW 51. 14. 050. IIl. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS Dellen next argues that the superior court erred in ruling that the Department did not 32 violate its procedural due process rights in retaining its surety fund after Dellen defaulted. 31 The superior court did not enter this finding in its judgment order. But during the hearing, it stated: I' m prepared to find the time of default as the time of submission of what I think you identified as Exhibit 2, the letter from Dellen dated January 18, [ 2002]. To me, that' s clearly a statement of Dellen' s intent, and all of the actions Dellen took after that were consistent with that statement of intent. And so I would find that as the date of default, and at that moment in time, under [ RCW] 51. 14. 020, the fund transfers to the Department. I can only determine which of these two options the actions of the parties support, and the only one that makes sense to me is default, because the other one, the termination, requires this notice with particular requirements. That clearly wasn' t done in this case. And it also anticipates that Dellen will continue to fulfill other certain obligations, which Dellen did not do. RP ( Mar. 30, 2012) at 57 -58.