Potelco, Inc. & Jeff Lampman v. L&i
49716-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- Potelco contracted to replace underground high‑voltage cables at a school; the work required a permit and a final Department of Labor & Industries inspection.
- Department inspector Boespflug visited the site July 17, 2013 while work was still unfinished; he spoke with Potelco crew but did not perform or document a final inspection. The crew energized the installation the next day.
- Department records later showed no inspection request had been made; Potelco requested a final inspection only after Boespflug contacted site administrator Jeff Lampman in October 2013; the inspector then approved the work with no corrective actions.
- The Department issued citations: Potelco for failing to request inspection under WAC 296‑46B‑901(9)(a) ($250) and Lampman as administrator under RCW 19.28.061(5)(b) for failing to ensure compliance ($100).
- An OAH ALJ upheld both citations; the Washington State Electrical Board adopted most findings but rejected a conclusion that the statute imposes strict liability on administrators; the Pierce County Superior Court affirmed and awarded $200 in statutory attorney fees to the Department.
Issues
| Issue | Potelco/Lampman (Plaintiff) Argument | Department (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Potelco timely requested a final inspection under WAC 296‑46B‑901(9)(a) | Crew’s conversation with inspector amounted to an inspection request (subjective understanding) | Regulation requires a request made after completion or energizing; no formal request was made until October | Potelco did not request inspection within required timeframe; citation affirmed |
| Whether Lampman failed to “ensure” compliance under RCW 19.28.061(5)(b) | Lampman took reasonable steps (training, communications, contract review) and should not be liable for others’ omissions | “Ensure” means make certain/guarantee compliance; Lampman did not verify that a request was made and took only minimal steps | Lampman failed to ensure compliance under the plain meaning of the statute; citation affirmed |
| Whether holding Lampman liable imposes strict liability for others’ mistakes | Such an interpretation would improperly impose strict liability on administrators | Board did not apply strict liability; it held Lampman liable for his own failure to ensure compliance | No strict liability was applied; Board explicitly rejected strict‑liability reading; upheld on facts |
| Whether statutory attorney fees ($200) to Department were improper | (Argued generally) | RCW allows prevailing party costs including statutory $200 attorney fee | Superior court’s $200 fee award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pilchuck Contractors, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 170 Wn. App. 514 (substantial‑evidence standard for agency factfinding)
- Harrison Mem’l Hosp. v. Gagnon, 110 Wn. App. 475 (do not reweigh evidence on appeal)
- Mid Mountain Contractors, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 136 Wn. App. 1 (unchallenged agency findings are verities)
- Nelson v. Washington State Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 175 Wn. App. 718 (review agency conclusions flow from findings)
- J & S Servs., Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 142 Wn. App. 502 (deference to agency statutory/regulatory interpretation in area of expertise)
- Nat’l Elec. Contractors Ass’n v. Riveland, 138 Wn.2d 9 (legislative purpose: protect public from dangerous electrical installations)
- Whatcom County v. Hirst, 186 Wn.2d 648 (de novo review of legal conclusions)
- State v. K.L.B., 180 Wn.2d 735 (statutory interpretation begins with plain language)
- State v. Budik, 173 Wn.2d 727 (context and statutory scheme in determining plain meaning)
- HomeStreet, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 166 Wn.2d 444 (use dictionary to determine plain meaning of undefined terms)
- State v. Torres, 151 Wn. App. 378 (presumption of common‑law meaning for undefined statutory terms)
- Columbia Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Benton Franklin Orthopedic Assocs., 168 Wn.2d 421 (ambiguity requires more than one reasonable interpretation)
- Bircumshaw v. State, 194 Wn. App. 176 (liberal review of assignment‑of‑error requirements)
- Snohomish County v. Hinds, 61 Wn. App. 371 (nonunanimous board opinions do not invalidate supported findings)
- Ainsworth v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 180 Wn. App. 52 (issues raised first in reply brief are not considered)
- West v. Thurston County, 168 Wn. App. 162 (courts will not consider conclusory arguments lacking authority)