Ganser-Heibel v. Chavallo Complex, LLC
173 Wash. App. 148
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Ganser-Heibel fell and fractured her hip on February 27, 2008, at a KPHD-operated senior health center sidewalk; Chavallo now owns the facility and is private.
- KPHD is a local government entity; Chavallo is a private entity; the tort claim arose against both entities.
- On February 3, 2011, Ganser-Heibel notified KPHD’s appointed agent of her tort damages claim, triggering RCW 4.96.020(4)’s tolling mechanism.
- Ganser-Heibel sued KPHD and Chavallo for negligence on April 5, 2011.
- Chavallo moved for summary judgment, arguing the notice to KPHD did not toll the three-year limit for a claim against a private entity.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Chavallo; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does RCW 4.96.020(4) toll a private-party claim when a local government is also sued? | Ganser-Heibel contends tolling applies to both claims in a single action. | Chavallo argues tolling applies only to tort claims against local government entities. | Tolling applies only to local government tort claims; not to private party claims. |
| Does Sidis v. Brodiel Dohrmann, Inc. and Clark v. State control result here? | Sidis/Clark toll the statute when some defendants are timely served within the period. | Sidis/Clark involve RCW 4.16.170’s 90-day tolling, not RCW 4.96.020(4)’s 60-day tolling for local government claims. | Sidis/Clark do not control; not applicable to 60-day tolling for local government claims. |
| Was there a genuine issue of material fact on proper service of Chavallo? | There is a factual dispute about service. | Service issue was not raised in opening brief and is a pretrial/legal question. | No genuine material-fact issue; service question not reviewable at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sidis v. Brodiel Dohrmann, Inc., 117 Wn.2d 325 (1991) (tolls under RCW 4.16.170 when some defendants are served timely)
- Clark v. State, 117 Wn.2d 325 (1991) (consolidated with Sidis; tolling framework guidance)
- Rivas v. Overlake Hosp. Med. Ctr., 164 Wn.2d 261 (2008) (burden on plaintiff to prove tolling makes timely)
- Anthis v. Copland, 173 Wn.2d 752 (2012) (statutory interpretation governs how tolling applies)
- Lowy v. PeaceHealth, 174 Wn.2d 769 (2012) (statutory plain meaning controls interpretation)
- Jackowski v. Borchelt, 174 Wn.2d 720 (2012) (de novo statutory interpretation for limitations)
- Auto. United Trades Org. v. State, 175 Wn.2d 537 (2012) (de novo review of statutory intent)