Court of Appeals takes under advisement challenge to $10 million settlement in Renteria v. King

Division 2 of the Washington Court of Appeals on April 29 took under advisement a motion for discretionary review challenging the superior court's approval of a $10,000,000 covenant-judgment settlement in Reuben Renteria v. Michelle King.

Matthew Munson, attorney for the moving party Associated Industries Insurance Company, argued the lower court abused its discretion by approving the settlement without adequate admissible evidence. "Only one of those parties, Mr. Renteria, submitted anything," Munson told the panel, saying the record contained no declarations from lay or expert witnesses, unauthenticated medical bills and other materials that, he said, did not explain how the $10,000,000 figure was reached.

Munson pressed the panel on liability, focusing on the testimony of a single eyewitness, James Hunter. He said Hunter's statements'for example that the driver "kept repeating herself"'did not amount to the kind of eyewitness proof required to establish a dram-shop claim, and noted Hunter did not see the driver being served or identify the server.

Respondent's counsel replied that the superior court did not abuse its discretion and had considered the so-called nine Chasse factors used to evaluate the reasonableness of covenant-judgment settlements. The respondent's attorney said the record included video of the collision, police reports, a drug recognition expert (DRE) investigation, cell-phone location data and other materials showing the chronology of events. Counsel also outlined the claimant's damages: an emergency-room bill the attorney described as nearly $1,000,000, a lost-wage claim the attorney estimated at roughly $2,500,000, and ongoing full-time care needs.

Counsel for the defense disputed arguments that owner Maria Andre was not at the establishment the night of the incident, saying police reports and a detective's deposition reflected that Andre stated she was working that night and had indicated she would provide surveillance video. Munson countered that Andre denied being there in responses to requests for admission and that some items mentioned in briefs were not in the trial record.

Both sides also debated timing: Munson argued that cell-phone records and expert analysis showed roughly an hour elapsed between departure from the bar and the crash, a gap he said undercuts the claim that an observation of apparent intoxication at service was close enough in time to support the settlement. Respondent's counsel said the settlement negotiations and the totality of the record supported the court's reasonableness finding.

Commissioner Aurora Bierce presided over the argument. After hearing both sides, the panel said it would take the motion under consideration and issue a written ruling. The court then recessed and moved on to its next case.