Court Opinion

ID: 9546942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:38:18.582279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:03.499512
License: Public Domain

*272Sweeney, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part) — I concur with the majority that the Podiatry Insurance Company of America (PICA) policy does not afford coverage for violations of the Consumer Protection Act. However, I respectfiilly dissent from that portion of the decision which imposes sanctions on the Mattsons' attorney for noncompliance with RAP 10.3 which requires separate assignments of error.
The sanctions this court imposes are paid to a party who "has been harmed by the delay or the failure to comply." RAP 18.9(a). While PICA complains about the Mattsons' noncompliance with the appellate rules, it has not demonstrated either prejudice or an inability to adequately identify and address the issues the Mattsons raise in their brief. The appeal followed a summary judgment dismissal in favor of PICA. The issues were clear and well framed in the Mattsons' brief, although not specifically set forth as assignments of error.
The appellate rules are to be liberally interpreted to promote justice. RAP 1.2(a). I would reserve imposition of sanctions for those failures which substantially interfere with the appellate process or significantly hamper an opposing party's ability to adequately address issues raised on appeal.