363 P.3d 587
Wash.2015Background
- Johnson, J. participates; two certified questions from the WDWA on Washington CPA extraterritorial reach.
- Plaintiff is a Texas resident who alleges deceptive debt-collection letters by SSB (Washington corp.) referred by State Farm (Illinois).
- Letters concerned an unliquidated subrogation claim; plaintiff claims they misrepresented a balance due and damaged her credit monitoring and caused procedural actions.
- Plaintiff filed in King County Superior Court; case removed to WDWA; district court dismissed unjust enrichment and certified two questions to the Washington Supreme Court.
- Court answers both questions in the affirmative, holding CPA applies extraterritorially to allow out-of-state plaintiffs against Washington defendants and to permit out-of-state plaintiffs against out-of-state defendants for acts of in-state agents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CPA authorize extraterritorial action by out-of-state plaintiffs? | Said to apply broadly to ‘any person’ harmed, regardless of residence. | Should be limited to intrastate reach. | Yes; CPA permits extraterritorial application. |
| Can an out-of-state plaintiff sue an out-of-state defendant for acts of its in-state agent under CPA? | Yes, through agency theory and extraterritorial reach. | Imposes intrastate limitations; agency acts within Washington only if targeted. | Yes; CPA permits such claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schnall v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 171 Wn.2d 260 (2011) (discussed extraterritorial reach of CPA (majority revised))
- Reader’s Digest Ass’n, Inc. v. Spokane, 81 Wn.2d 259 (1972) (liberal CPA construction to protect the public beyond state borders)
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Insurance Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (1986) (deception need not be actual; capacity to deceive enough)
- Indoor Billboard/Wash., Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Wash., Inc., 162 Wn.2d 59 (2007) (rejected requirement of reliance for CPA claim)
- Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 166 Wn.2d 27 (2009) (CPA applies beyond consumer or business disputes)
- Wieber, In re Bankruptcy Petition of Wieber, 182 Wn.2d 919 (2015) (homestead exemption not applicable extraterritorially; CPA analysis distinguishable)
- State v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, 501 P.2d 290 (1972) (illustrates broad scope of Washington’s CPA interpretation)