Opinion ID: 2760779
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pre-Tender Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Text: Brighton incurred some of its attorneys’ fees and costs before tendering a defense to Aegis. As noted above, Aegis argues that it should not have to pay Brighton for any of its attorneys’ fees or expenses. In the alternative, Aegis denies that it owes Brighton for the money it had spent in legal expenses before asking Aegis for a defense. We reject Aegis’s alternative argument. Resolution of the issue involves interpretation of the indemnity clause. As discussed above, the parties agree that interpretation of the indemnity clause is governed by Washington law. In Washington, Aegis would incur liability for Brighton’s pre-tender attorneys’ fees and costs unless Aegis “show[ed] substantial and actual prejudice” from the delay in tendering the defense. Nat’l Sur. Corp. v. Immunex Corp., 256 P.3d 439, 448 (Wash. App. Ct. 2011). Aegis must prove that the late tender “had an identifiable and material detrimental effect on its ability to defend its interests.” Id. at 448. Aegis objects to the district court’s resolution of this issue on summary judgment, urging the presence of fact-questions that should be reserved for a jury. But, Aegis presented no evidence of an identifiable, material detriment on its ability to defend. In Aegis’s view, the expense would have been less if Brighton had tendered the defense earlier. With an earlier tender, Aegis states that it could have obtained -12- cheaper counsel and pursued better strategies. But, in its opening brief, Aegis did not refer to any evidence for these assertions. Aegis again failed to identify any evidence in its reply brief. There, for the first time, Aegis stated that Brighton might have been able to save litigation expenses by filing a summary judgment motion against Ms. Miller. But even then, the argument was not supported by any evidence. Aegis failed to even say what Brighton could have argued in a summary judgment motion. The absence of any evidence is fatal. Aegis’s assertion of prejudice rests on surmise, and we cannot infer an identifiable, material detriment on Aegis’s ability to defend its interests.