Washington Supreme Court
Ranger Ins. Co. v. Pierce County
September 18, 2008192 P.3d 886
Summary
The court affirmed the reversal of summary judgment for Pierce County because genuine issues of material fact remained concerning whether the clerk breached the applicable standard of care and whether Ranger's agent had apparent authority to redirect Ranger's funds to obligations of another surety. The court held that evidence of customary clerk practices did not establish reasonable prudence as a matter of law, and the powers of attorney did not conclusively establish authority to reallocate the funds.
Holding
- Whether Pierce County established as a matter of law that its clerk satisfied the applicable standard of care.. Pierce County was not entitled to summary judgment because a reasonable jury could find that a reasonably prudent clerk would have verified which surety underwrote each forfeited bond before allocating Ranger's funds, notwithstanding evidence that the clerk followed customary industry practices.
- Whether Pierce County established as a matter of law that Signature had apparent authority to redirect Ranger's funds.. Pierce County was not entitled to summary judgment because a reasonable jury could find that Ranger's objective manifestations did not cause Pierce County reasonably to believe Signature could allocate Ranger's funds to Granite State obligations.
Docket 80389-7