|
Shareholder
Practice:
Marilee C. Erickson is a shareholder in the Reed McClure
law firm. For over 20 years, Marilee has been representing
parties in trial and appellate courts. She focuses her
practice on insurance disputes, including bad faith
claims, and defense of tort claims. She has handled
premises, product, and professional liability claims.
She devotes a substantial portion of her practice to
appellate matters. Marilee is a charter member of the
Washington Appellate Lawyers Association (“WALA”).
She frequently appears in Washington appellate courts.
Prior to joining Reed McClure, Marilee served as law
clerk at the Washington Court of Appeals, Division II.
She is a contributing author of the Third Edition of
the Washington Appellate Practice Deskbook.
Education:
Seattle University, School of Law, 1986, J.D., Honors:
cum laude
North Park College, 1982, B.A., Honors: cum laude
Background:
Marilee was born and raised in Mount Vernon, Washington.
She is admitted to practice in the State of Washington,
the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington, and United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.
In addition to her WALA membership, Marilee has served
on various bar committees and often speaks at CLEs.
Marilee was on the King County Bar Foundation and served
as President in 1999 to 2000. She is a member of the
King County Bar Association and the Washington Defense
Trial Lawyers.
Representative
Cases :
Morin v. Burris, 160 Wn.2d 745, 161 P.3d
956 (2007)
A default order and judgment were vacated because plaintiff
failed to disclose the fact a lawsuit had been filed
when the defendant’s liability insurer specifically
inquired about the status of the case.
Del Rosario v. Del Rosario, 152 Wn.2d 375,
97 P.3d 11 (2004)
Challenge to a personal injury release involving a non-English
speaker. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s
application of the Finch “fairly and knowingly
made” test for challenging a release. The Supreme
Court held the Finch test only applied to latent injury
claims. A party can only successfully challenge a release
by establishing misrepresentation, overreaching, or
undue influence.
Aranda v. Haywood, 143 Wn.2d 321, 19 P.3d 406
(2001)
Plaintiff who waited until after trial was estopped
from challenging adequacy of proof of service of the
request for trial de novo of a mandatory arbitration
award.
Ashley v. Hall, 138 Wn.2d 151, 978 P.2d 1055
(1999)
Admission of lay opinion that did not meet requirements
of ER 701 was harmless error where opponent did not
timely object or more to strike.
Mathioudakis v. Fleming, 140 Wn. App. 247,
161 P.3d 451 (2007)
Court refused to apply Fisher-Finney rule — that
a damages award is binding on the UM/UIM carrier —
to the tortfeasor.
Tribble v. Allstate Property and Cas. Ins. Co.,
134 Wn. App. 163, 139 P.3d 373 (2006)
Judgment against UIM/UM carrier in a trial for contract
benefits is limited to the amount of the UIM/UM policy
limits.
Williams-Moore v. Estate of Shaw, 122 Wn. App.
871, 96 P.3d 433 (2003)
Successfully challenged a plaintiff’s attempt
to serve herself as personal representative of deceased
defendant’s estate where plaintiff failed to post
bond and take oath of personal representative.
Pfaff
v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 103 Wn. App.
829, 14 P.3d 837 (2000)
The court must consider the evidence and reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the party
seeking to vacate a default judgment when deciding whether
the movant has presented “substantial evidence”
of a “prima facie” defense.
Honors and Awards:
BV rated by Martindale Hubbell
> back to top
|