Abraham Jok, Respondent V. Safelite Fulfillment, Inc., Et Al., Appellants, 60685-2

After Jok sued Safelite for injuries from a 2020 accident, Safelite's counsel twice asked Sedgwick for the applicable insurance policy and produced only a $5 million CHUBB policy in discovery. 1
In August 2024, Cozen learned directly from Travelers that Safelite had a $25 million excess umbrella policy, but did not disclose it to Jok until December 6, 2024, four days before trial. 2
During trial, Jok learned from counsel that the Travelers policy existed, and the jury later returned an $11.25 million verdict for Jok. 3
Jok moved for sanctions, and the superior court found Cozen and Safelite had failed to make a reasonable inquiry under CR 26(g), initially imposing a $1 million charitable sanction against both. 4
After disclosure of a second undisclosed $25 million Everest National policy, the court reimposed the $1 million sanction solely against Cozen, concluding defense counsel had not reasonably investigated available insurance coverage. 5
Cozen appealed, challenging both the CR 26(g) violation finding and the size of the sanction. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Cozen violate CR 26(g) by failing to reasonably inquire into Safelite's insurance coverage? 7	Jok said Cozen ignored obvious coverage leads and hid two $25 million policies.	Cozen said it reasonably relied on Sedgwick and produced the policy it received.	Yes; Cozen failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry. 8
Was the $1 million sanction an abuse of discretion? 9	Jok said the court properly imposed a severe deterrent sanction.	Cozen said the sanction was punitive, untethered to harm, and disproportionate.	Yes; the amount was unsupported and required remand. 10
Are CR 37/Burnet factors required for a CR 26(g) monetary sanction? 11	Jok said Burnet does not govern CR 26(g) monetary sanctions.	Cozen said prejudice and lesser-sanction findings were required.	No; Burnet does not apply to CR 26(g) sanctions. 12
Are appellate fees awarded? 13	Jok requested fees under RAP 18.1 and CR 26(g).	Cozen sought costs but cited no authority.	Fees denied to Cozen and awarded to Jok. 14

Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wn.2d 299 (Wash. 1993) (CR 26(g) sanctions should be the least severe adequate sanction and should deter, educate, and punish 15)
Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 677 (Wash. 2006) (CR 26(g) uses an objective reasonable-inquiry standard and is distinct from CR 37/Burnet 16)
Magaña v. Hyundai Motor Am., 167 Wn.2d 570 (Wash. 2009) (abuse of discretion occurs when a sanction is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds 17)
King County v. Aquatherm GmbH, 36 Wn. App. 2d 410 (Wash. Ct. App. 2026) (broad discovery-sanction discretion; substantial CR 26(g) monetary sanctions affirmed in a discovery-abuse case 18)
Cedell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 176 Wn.2d 686 (Wash. 2013) (discovery is broad and constitutionally important 19)
Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484 (Wash. 1997) (lesser-sanction and prejudice findings are required for harsh CR 37 sanctions affecting a party's case 20)
Carroll v. Akebono Brake Corp., 22 Wn. App. 2d 845 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022) (moving party bears burden to show willful violation and substantial prejudice under CR 37 21)