Opinion ID: 4535787
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: plein lawsuit

Text: 3 In 2016, a fire damaged the Pleins’ home and personal property. CP at 140. USAA agreed that the Pleins’ homeowners’ insurance policy covered the damage. Id. On USAA’s recommendation, the Pleins hired The Sterling Group, Inc. to repair the damage. Id. But rather than repair the home, Sterling “concealed unrepaired fire damage.” In addition, the work that Sterling did contained “numerous deficiencies.” CP at 140-41. USAA nevertheless declined to pay the 2 Cueva v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Pierce County Superior Court No. 10- 2-06680-8. 3 These facts are drawn from the allegations in the Pleins’ first amended complaint. 4 No. 97563-9 Pleins for either the cost of additional repairs to their home or the cost of the temporary living arrangements while their home was uninhabitable. CP at 141. The Pleins hired attorney Joel Hanson to represent them in a lawsuit against USAA and Sterling, alleging insurance bad faith, violation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), ch. 19.86 RCW, and several other claims. CP at 142-44. Soon after filing the lawsuit, Hanson consulted with two Keller attorneys, William Smart and Ian Birk. 4 CP at 8. The Pleins hired Smart and Birk to represent them along with Hanson. CP at 8-9. USAA then demanded that Keller immediately withdraw from representing the Pleins due to a conflict of interest. CP at 60. USAA stated that it would move to disqualify if Keller did not comply within 24 hours. Id. USAA also stated that it would move to disqualify Hanson “on the grounds that his representation is likewise tainted by this direct conflict.” 5 Id. The Pleins moved for a ruling regarding the “asserted conflict of interest.” CP at 13. The trial court considered briefing and unrebutted declarations and then issued an order concluding that “the Plein matter is factually distinct from and not 4 Birk continues to appear as a counsel of record before this court. Smart filed a notice of withdrawal on January 9, 2020. When the Court of Appeals accepted interlocutory review, it declined review as to 5 Hanson. Only the issue of Keller’s representation of the Pleins remains before this court. 5 No. 97563-9 substantially related to the firm’s prior representation of USAA, and as a result, the firm’s representation of the Pleins is not a conflict under RPC 1.9.” CP at 129. Accordingly, the trial court allowed Keller to continue to represent the Pleins. CP at 130. USAA moved for discretionary review of this conflict issue. The Court of Appeals granted review and reversed. Plein v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 9 Wn. App. 2d 407, 445 P.3d 574 (2019). After acknowledging its previous test for “substantially related” matters under RPC 1.9, the appellate court recognized that RPC 1.9 and its comments had been amended in 2006. Id. at 415-16. Since those 2006 changes, “no published Washington case ha[d] interpreted the comments to RPC 1.9 in order to address the definition of ‘substantially related matter.’” Id. at 416. Relying largely on comment 3 to RPC 1.9, the Court of Appeals noted that “[w]hile the specific fact of the Pleins’ case may qualify as distinct, Keller learned significant confidential information about USAA’s strategies for bad faith litigation.” Id. at 418. Because USAA showed “a significant risk that Keller ha[d] knowledge of both specific and general confidential information that could materially advance the Pleins’ case,” it held that RPC 1.9(a) precluded Keller’s representation of the Pleins. Id. at 419. We granted review, 194 Wn.2d 1009 (2019), and now reverse. 6 No. 97563-9