Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)

Citation: Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
Parent Document: Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2011-11-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4950936/hawkins-v-diel/ ↗

Full Text

1,426 chars

¶12 DMC argues that this case is like Kubista, in which our Supreme Court found evidence of liability insurance admissible. In Kubista, the plaintiff, a shipfitter, suffered back injuries and had to find another occupation due to the defendant’s negligence. Kubista, 87 Wn.2d at 62-63. The defendant’s insurance adjuster encouraged the plaintiff to go to school to learn a new trade, promising that the insurance company would “ ‘take care of him.’ ” Kubista, 87 Wn.2d at 63. The plaintiff later filed suit against the defendant, alleging general damages that included reduced earning capacity and lost wages. Kubista, 87 Wn.2d at 63. The defendant moved to exclude testimony concerning the insurance adjuster’s statement to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff responded that such evidence was necessary in order to rebut the defendant’s anticipated claim of failure to mitigate. Kubista, 87 Wn.2d at 64. The trial court excluded the insurance testimony as irrelevant, and in closing remarks to the jury, the defendant argued that it was not responsible for the plaintiff’s decision to go to school rather *9than seek employment. Kubista, 87 Wn.2d at 65, 67. Our Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that “[t]his evidence on its face is relevant to show defendant was estopped to assert the defense that plaintiff’s failure to seek employment violated his duty to mitigate damages.” Kubista, 87 Wn.2d at 67.

Other Sections in This Document (37)

Full Text