We defend a wide range of civil cases, from complex insurance coverage disputes to the defense of catastrophic accidents. We resolve cases at every stage of litigation, from pre-suit investigation to trial, and through final appeal. Our Attorneys represent clients in State and Federal trial courts, and all courts of appeal, including the Washington State Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

No two cases are exactly the same; we do not use a “one-size fits all” approach.  We work with our clients to understand their needs and goals from the outset of our representation through case resolution. We customize litigation strategies to best serve our clients in every case. We continuously seek feedback to meet our clients’ goals and address their concerns. 

Litigation Case Studies

Defense Verdict in Four-Week Personal Injury Trial

On November 18, 2016, Jillian Hinman and William O’Brien obtained a complete defense verdict, unanimous from the 12-person jury, after a four-week trial. Ms. Hinman and Mr. O’Brien represented a driver, his auto dealer employer, and the dealer’s president.  The case involved two plaintiffs who were passengers in the vehicle being driven by the defendant as part of a test drive. The driver lost control and hit a concrete block head-on at 35-40 mph. Defendants admitted liability, but contested injuries to the plaintiffs.

The first plaintiff claimed traumatic brain injury, causing total blindness inside of three feet , but 20/20 vision outside of three feet; foreign accent syndrome; vestibular issues; balance issues leading to falls; and traumatic fibromyalgia and spondyloarthropathy. The second plaintiff claimed chronic pain from chest and shoulder injuries that required two surgeries. Both plaintiffs claimed psychological issues, including PTSD, and permanent injury that prevented them from working.  Neither plaintiff entered any medical bills into evidence. The first plaintiff asked the jury for $9 million and the second plaintiff asked for $5 million. The jury found that defendants did not proximately cause plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.

Ms. Hinman is an associate at Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S. Mr. O’Brien is formerly with The Law Office of William J. O’Brien, both of Seattle, Washington. The case was tried in King County Superior Court, in Seattle.

Jury Verdict for Attorney Client

Our attorney client sued his former clients to collect unpaid fees. His former clients then counterclaimed for breach of contract and malpractice. After a three-day trial, Forsberg & Umlauf attorney Jeff Kestle obtained a jury verdict in our client's favor on the fee claim -- recovering more than the amount requested at trial -- and a defense verdict on the counterclaims.


Appeals Court Dismisses Claim Against Client

Shareholder Marty Pujolar obtained a favorable ruling in an unpublished opinion by Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals, affirming the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment dismissal of employment discrimination claims against the firm’s employer client.  The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling that there was no basis for the plaintiff’s claims under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”).

Dismissal of Claims Against a Dissolved Corporation

Attorney Susan K. McIntosh obtained a complete dismissal of all claims by a dissolved corporation following expiration of the time within which the corporation could be reinstated as an active corporation.  Ms. McIntosh argued that the lawsuit abated as a matter of law where the corporation ceased to exist after it failed to reinstate within the reinstatement period allowed by statute.  The common law applied because the business corporations statute was silent on the issue.

Dismissal of EEOC Complaint

In finding for the Association on all claims, the Court also awarded the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs in the defense of the case.

Shareholder Marty Pujolar obtained the final dismissal of an EEOC charge of employment discrimination against the firm’s employer client.  The claimant had filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC alleging discrimination based upon (1) Sex (gender) - Title VII of Civil Rights Act, (2) Age, and (3) Retaliation.

Houseboat Association Wins Verdict and Recovers Fees

Representing an association of houseboat owners, shareholders Ray Cox and Christopher Matheson obtained a complete defense verdict after a two-week trial in King County Superior Court. Plaintiff alleged violations of the Washington Condominium Act and sought possession of common area waters for plaintiff’s exclusive use as a boat moorage. In finding for the Association on all claims, the Court also awarded the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs for defense of the case.

Summary Judgment Dismisses Liability Claim

As counsel for a company exposed to vicarious liability for an employee’s auto accident, attorney Nate Furman obtained summary judgment dismissal based on CR 15(c), which governs whether a claim asserted in an amended pleading “relates back” to an earlier, timely pleading. Our client learned of the accident on the day it occurred, but did not receive notice of the plaintiff’s lawsuit until served with the amended complaint after the statute of limitations had expired.  The Court agreed that knowledge of the accident – as opposed to notice of the lawsuit – was insufficient and that the lack of prejudice to the client did not cure the problem.  As a result, the claim against our client did not relate back and was dismissed with prejudice. 

Summary Judgment Dismissal of Claims in a Wildfire Case

After the “Taylor Bridge” fire burned more than 27,000 acres of land in Central Washington, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources issued a fire investigation report determining that the “most likely” cause of the fire was a rebar contractor’s work on the bridge.  Nineteen separate lawsuits brought by more than 300 separate plaintiffs followed, alleging that the rebar contractor started the fire and and was responsible for more than $400 Million dollars in damages.  Forsberg & Umlauf attorneys Grant Lingg and Scott Samuelson defended the case and determined that the rebar contractor’s work could not have been the cause. They first worked to consolidate the many cases filed in two different counties.  Once the cases were consolidated before a single judge, they persuaded the Court that there was no admissible evidence that the fire was initiated by the work of the firm’s client and the claims were dismissed.