Opinion ID: 1039178
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: On March 30, 2007, Mau rented aU-Haul truck from an Olympia U-Haul facility. When she rented the truck, Mau also purchased Safemove Protection, an optional cargo protection policy offered by U-Haul, which does not cover water damage. 1 Report of Proceedings (RP) at 39, 84; Ex. 25. Mau, her partner David Eden, and several friends and family members used the truck to move Mau's and Eden's personal belongings from a rented storage facility in Centralia, Washington, to their new home in Morton, Washington. At some point after Mau returned the truck, she complained to aU-Haul employee that the truck's roof had leaked and that her property had been damaged by rainwater as a result. In response, the employee gave Mau the number of Republic Western Insurance so Mau could file a claim. Mau called Republic Western on April 3, 2007, to report the alleged damage. Because Mau reported that her items had been damaged by rainwater, Republic Western concluded that her claim would not be covered by the Safemove Protection policy. On April 4, the company sent Mau a letter to this effect. In lieu of a Safemove claim, Republic Western opened a general liability claim on Mau's behalf. 1 RP at 37-39. 2 State v. Mau, No. 87697-5 When Mau filed her claim, Republic Western was a wholly owned subsidiary of U-Haul. At trial, a Republic Western employee described the company as the claims administrator for U-Haul who is self-insured. 1 RP at 36. Because it was based in California, Republic Western contracted with independent claims adjusters to investigate claims filed by U-Haul customers in other states. It hired Reilly Gibby, an independent adjustor in Washington, to investigate Mau's claim. Gibby called Mau on April 19, 2007, to discuss her claim, to request documentation of her losses, and to set up an in-person meeting. Mau met with Gibby the next day at a restaurant about 30 miles from her home. Gibby interviewed Mau about the move, and together they compiled a list of allegedly damaged items totaling more than $16,000 in value. On May 7, Gibby met with Eden, who verified Mau's claims. Because of inconsistencies between Mau's and Eden's accounts of the move, their refusal to meet with Gibby at their home, and their failure to provide any documentation of the alleged damage, Gibby grew to suspect fraud. Eventually, he recommended that Republic Western deny the claim. Roughly two years later, the Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner opened an investigation into Mau's and Eden's claim. On March 17, 2010, the Lewis County prosecutor charged Mau and Eden with one count each of making a false insurance claim. That crime is defined in RCW 48.30.230, which provides, in relevant part: False claims or proof-Penalty. ( 1) It is unlawful for any person, knowing it to be such, to: 3 State v. Mau, No. 87697-5 (a) Present, or cause to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim, or any proof in support of such a claim, for the payment of a loss under a contract of insurance; or (b) Prepare, make, or subscribe any false or fraudulent account, certificate, affidavit, or proof of loss, or other document or writing, with intent that it be presented or used in support of such a claim. Mau and Eden were not joined as codefendants, but their cases were joined and consolidated for trial. After the State rested, the defense moved to dismiss on the ground that the State had failed to prove that the defendants made their claim under a contract of insurance. 2 RP at 207-09. Mau's attorney argued that the false claims statute was designed to deal with people who take out an insurance policy and then make a fraudulent claim ... on the contract of insurance that they took out and that the statute was therefore inapplicable to the defendants' liability claim. 2 RP at 208 (emphasis added). He also argued that because U-Haul is apparently selfinsured, Republic Western could have handl(ed) this claim for U-Haul but could not have act( ed) as an insurance company under some sort of contract of insurance. 2 RP at 208-09. The court denied the motion to dismiss; it reasoned that the defense's argument was based on too narrow a reading of [the false claims] statute. 2 RP at 210. 1 1 The trial judge reasoned that an insurance policy can be direct coverage, [or] it can cover third parties. This was an insurance claim. I don't think that the language of this statute would preclude this type of a claim being a claim for insurance .... I think that is too narrow of a reading of [the] statute ....  2 RP at 210. 4 State v. Mau, No. 87697-5 The jury found Mau and Eden guilty as charged. Eden was sentenced to 15 days with allowance that it be served at home. Mau was sentenced to 60 days with allowance that it be served on electronic home monitoring. Mau and Eden appealed their convictions, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Mau, noted at 169 Wn. App. 1002, 2012 WL 2499372. Mau alone petitioned for review, which this court granted. State v. Mau, 176 Wn.2d 1007, 297 P.3d 68 (2013).