Maria Hedger v. Lisa Groeschell And John Doe Groeschell
199 Wash. App. 8
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Hedger sued Groeschell for negligence after a 2013 car collision; mandatory arbitration awarded Hedger $17,880.10 (later $18,811.86 with statutory costs).
- Groeschell demanded a trial de novo; before trial the court imposed sanctions totaling $6,147.49 for various procedural misconduct (mediation, expert disclosure, and late assertion of a deception-defense).
- Days before trial Groeschell asserted the deception doctrine defense (distinct from general contributory negligence); she later withdrew it when she could not show she had raised it at arbitration.
- A jury returned a verdict for Hedger but awarded only $11,200 in economic and general damages (reduced to $10,640 after 5% comparative fault); statutory costs added ~$2,162; total judgment after trial including sanctions was ~$18,949.64.
- The trial court awarded Hedger over $60,000 in attorney fees under MAR 7.3, concluding Groeschell had not improved her position post-arbitration; Groeschell appealed both the sanctions and the MAR 7.3 fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hedger) | Defendant's Argument (Groeschell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly sanctioned Groeschell for raising the deception doctrine on the eve of trial | Deception doctrine was pleaded/raised too late and unfairly surprised Hedger; sanctions appropriate for procedural bad faith | General contributory negligence in the answer was sufficient notice; no bad faith because she had argued the defense earlier at arbitration | Sanctions affirmed: deception doctrine is a distinct affirmative defense requiring specific notice; late factual/delayed disclosure was procedural bad faith |
| Whether sanctions should be included in the MAR 7.3 improved-position comparison for awarding attorney fees | The court may include postarbitration sanctions and costs when comparing positions; without including them, Hedger would be disadvantaged | Sanctions and post-arbitration costs should not be considered because they were not before the arbitrator; comparing only arbitrator award and jury verdict shows Groeschell improved her position | Fee award reversed: court erred by including sanctions in the MAR 7.3 comparison; comparing arbitrator’s award to jury verdict shows defendant improved her position, so MAR 7.3 fees inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. S.H., 102 Wn. App. 468 (procedural bad faith supports sanctions)
- Rogerson Hiller Corp. v. Port of Port Angeles, 96 Wn. App. 918 (court may sanction for vexatious litigation conduct)
- Tobias v. Rainwater, 71 Wn.2d 845 (deception doctrine requires what the defendant actually saw)
- Mahoney v. Tingley, 85 Wn.2d 95 (CR 8(c) requires pleading affirmative defenses to avoid surprise)
- Tran v. Yu, 118 Wn. App. 607 (postarbitration sanctions and costs should not be considered in MAR 7.3 determination)
- Nelson v. Erickson, 186 Wn.2d 385 (position prior to trial interpreted as an ordinary person would)
- Niccum v. Enguist, 175 Wn.2d 441 (approach to comparing offers/awards post-arbitration)
- Bearden v. McGill, 197 Wn. App. 852 (compare arbitrator’s initial award and jury verdict for MAR 7.3 analysis)
- Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wn.2d 299 (sanctions principles: least severe adequate sanction)