Seattle Monorail Columbia Tower Seattle



Karr Tuttle Campbell has extensive experience — and success — in handling appeals from both trial court decisions and administrative rulings dealing with varied subjects on both state and federal levels. In addition to protecting interests of the firm’s continuing clients, this group works on referral from outside clients and attorneys.

Our attorneys assist in all phases of litigation including summary judgments and other case-dispositive motions, preservation of error, jury charge preparation, case analysis and assessment, and pre-trial and post-trial mediation. Leveraging the expertise of our full-service firm, attorneys have handled appeals for all areas of litigation.

Representative Matters

  • Obtained reversal of trial court determination that the “litigation costs” portion of a settlement in favor of a homeowner’s association were “supplementary payments,” and thus were payable by defending insurer in addition to policy limits. Also obtained affirmance of trial court decision awarding prejudgment interest to insurer that funded a settlement on behalf of insured against other insurers that failed to contribute or under-contributed.  Allowance of prejudgment interest and court of appeals’ conclusion that payment of the claimant’s “litigation costs” were not supplementary payments enabled our client to recover several million dollars in this case, and save countless millions in other cases involving the same “portfolio” issues.  Polygon Northwest Co. v. American National Fire Ins. Co. et al., 143 Wn.App. 753, 189 P.3d 777 (2008).
  • Obtained reversal of trial court and court of appeals decisions denying client’s petition for refund of sales tax. The Supreme Court agreed with our argument that an exemption for sales tax liability applied to our out-of-state direct seller.  Dot Foods, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 166 Wn.2d 912, 215 P.3d 185 (2009).
  • On certification to the Washington Supreme Court, obtained a ruling that public libraries may, consistent with Article I, Section 5 of the Washington Constitution, filter internet access for all patrons without disabling the filter to allow access to websites containing constitutionally protected speech upon the request of an adult library patron. Bradburn v. NCRL, 168 Wn.2d 789, 231 P.3d 166 (2010).
  • Reversal of a $1 million jury verdict on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting closing argument. Atlas Copco Industrial Compressors, Inc. v. Karn Repair Service, Inc., 172 Or.App. 317, rev. denied 332 Or. 316 (2001).
  • Court affirmed dismissal of wrongful discharge claims brought by employee who was terminated for failure to comply with a return-to-work agreement. Hines v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 127 Wn. App. 356 (2005).
  • Obtained a reversal of a jury verdict against an insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith, finding that the trial court improperly interpreted the resulting loss provision in the applicable insurance policy and as a result incorrectly removed the question of determining the efficient proximate cause of the subject loss from the finder of fact. The Division II Court of Appeals remanded the case for a jury determination of causation.  Review has been accepted by the Washington Supreme Court.  Vision One v. Philadelphia Insurance Company, 158 Wn. Ap 91, 241 P.3d 429 (2010).
  • Prevailed on appeal of trial court’s failure to grant continuance of adversary’s motion for summary judgment under Fed. Rule Civ. P. 56(f). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that U.S. District Court abused its discretion when it denied our motion, based on Rule 56(f), that defendant’s motion for summary judgment, brought five months before discovery closed and while active discovery was underway, should be continued.  American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co. v. Westchester Surplus Ins. Lines, No. 08-35264, 334 Fed. Appx. 839; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12586 (Ninth Cir. June 11, 2009).
  • Reversal without remand of the NLRB by convincing the D.C. Circuit that the Board had executed “a 180° turn in policy with no Board explanation.” Willamette Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 144 F.3d 377, 880 (D.C. Cir 1998).
  • The Oregon Supreme Court issuing a writ of mandamus requiring the trial court on remand to provide plaintiffs with a new trial even though the Court’s prior disposition had not. State ex rel Abercrombie v. Johnson, 326 Or. 135, 950 P.2d 312 (1997).
  • Successful persuasion of the Oregon Supreme Court to withdraw, reconsider, and substantially modify — to our client’s benefit — an announced decision. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tualatin Tire & Auto, 325 Or .46, 932 P.2d 1141 (1997).
  • Court reversed summary judgment for insured and granted summary judgment for insurer, finding that patent infringement claims were not covered by “advertising injury” provisions in insurance policy. Auto Sox USA, Inc. v. Zurich North America, 121 Wn. App. 422 (2004).
  • Court affirmed dismissal of claim that auto policy’s underinsured motorist coverage was $1 million, rather than $60,000; insured asserted insufficient waiver of UIM coverage. Humleker v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., 159 Wn. App. 667 (2011).
  • Court affirmed dismissal of insured’s claim that he was entitled to insurer-provided defense against construction defect claims. McGowan v. Hudon, 2002 Wn. App. LEXIS 530 (Wn. Ct. App. Div. III, March 28, 2002).
  • Washington Supreme Court unanimously reversed Court of Appeals, finding that asbestos-related tort claims were discharged in client’s bankruptcy. Herring v. Texaco, Inc., 161 Wn.2d 189 (2007).
  • Washington Supreme Court unanimously held that former employees could not bring asbestos-related “intentional injury” claims employer; such claims were barred by the federal Longshore & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Gorman v. Lockheed Shipbuilding Co., 155 Wn.2d 198 (2005).
  • Successfully defended insurer client against claims by another insurer by establishing that damage caused by continuous exposure to water intrusion due to multiple construction defects is a single occurrence and, therefore, “anti-stacking” provision in client’s commercial general insurance policy’s limited client’s exposure to a single occurrence limit. Court of Appeals affirmed trial court decision in client’s favor.  Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Valiant Ins. Co., 155 Wn.App. 469, 229 P.3d 930 (2010).