We’re all ears!
Let us hear from you!. We welcome letters to
the editor on issues presented in the magazine. Email letters to email@example.com.
becu.org/trust | 206-812-5176
Medical Malpractice | Wrongful Death | Insurance and Injury Settlements | Product Liability
BECU Trust Services is a trade name used by MEMBERS® Trust Company under license from BECU. Trust services are provided by MEMBERS® Trust
Company, a federal thrift regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Trust and investment products are not deposits of or guaranteed by
the trust company, a credit union or credit union affiliate, are not insured or guaranteed by the NCUA, FDIC or any other governmental agency, and are
subject to investment risks, including possible loss of the principal amount invested.
BECU is a not-for-profit credit union, dedicated to the philosophy of people
helping people. BECU Trust Services shares the same philosophy. We see our
role as more than just managing money–our first priority is taking care of our
So when it comes to Settlement Trusts, we always have the best interests of your
client in mind. We act as trustee, and work to manage trust assets and protect
them from financial risks that affect them today, and in the future.
Our experienced full-service trust management team offers local, personalized
service, for competitive, fair rates. Contact us today.
SECURE THE FUTURE
WITH BECU TRUST SERVICES
15_BEC0022_Trust Services_Print-8.375x10.875_F1.indd 1 3/5/15 11: 58 AM
of other evidence presented in the
case to determine whether sufficient
evidence raises a factual issue….
In striking Treciak’s declaration,
the trial court ruled that it was
inadmissible. This is contrary to
DCR and the trial court erred in
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Treciak, 117 Wash. App. 402, 407-08 71
P.3d 703 (2013).
If an explanation of the contradiction
is offered, then the issue is simply one
for the trier of fact. On December 29,
2014, the Court of Appeals reversed the
trial court’s application of the Marshall
Rule, where the (a) party (Taylor) had (b)
offered an explanation of his prior, con-
… whether the explanation is plau-
sible is an issue to be determined
by the trier of fact. Safeco Ins. Co.
v. McGrath, 63 Wash.App. 170, 175,
817 P.2d 861 (1991).
Taylor v. Bell, P.3d ----, 2014 WL
7387790, (2014, WL at p. 11).
In conclusion, if a judge applies the
Marshall Rule to exclude evidence, it is
If a judge finds contradictory statements insufficient to survive summary
judgment, that is clear error if party provides an explanation for the contradiction, as the plausibility of that explanation is a jury question.
The Marshall rule is a narrow rule
that a sworn statement of a party that
contradicts prior sworn testimony is
insufficient — without explanation or other
witness or documentary support — to
create a genuine issue of material fact to
survive summary judgment.
Craig A. Mason, Spokane
CORRECTION: The article “A
Brief History of the Death Penalty In Washington” (March 2015
NWLawyer) stated that, until recently, all counties except King
have abandoned the death penalty,
when, in fact, the death penalty has
been sought in other Washington
counties, in recent years.
Did you recently move and
want to be sure you’re getting
Make sure your address is up-to-date by going to www.mywsba.org.