Skip to main content

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

Full Text

1,701 chars
Dellen 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.