Segura v. Cabrera, 184 Wash. 2d 587 (2015)

Citation: Segura v. Cabrera, 184 Wash. 2d 587 (2015)
Parent Document: Segura v. Cabrera, 184 Wash. 2d 587 (2015)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2015-10-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4910133/segura-v-cabrera/ ↗

Full Text

1,157 chars

The majority asserts that we said the opposite in Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass’n v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wn.2d 299, 858 P.2d 1054 (1993) (plurality opinion). Majority at 595. It is true that in Fisons, we disallowed recovery of emotional distress damages under the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW, which affords “actual damages.” Fisons, 122 Wn.2d at 318. But that was not just because of RCW 19.86.090’s language allowing an individual “to recover . . . actual damages sustained.” (Emphasis added.) In fact, we explained that there was no right to emotional distress damages in that context because the statute limited the right to sue to a “person who is injured in his or her business or property by a violation of [the act].” RCW 19.86.090 (emphasis added). In Fisons, we ruled, “ ‘The phrase “business or property” also retains restrictive significance. It would, for example, exclude personal injuries suffered.’ ” Fisons, 122 Wn.2d at 318 (quoting Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 339, 99 S. Ct. 2326, 60 L. Ed. 2d 931 (1979)). The statute at issue in this case, in contrast, contains no such limiting language.

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text