Washington Supreme Court
Ranger Insurance Company v. Pierce County
September 18, 2008164 Wash. 2d 545
Summary
The court held that Pierce County was not entitled to summary judgment in Ranger Insurance Company’s negligence action because a reasonable jury could find that the clerk breached the applicable standard of care by misallocating Ranger’s funds. The court also held that a genuine issue existed as to whether Ranger made objective manifestations giving its agent apparent authority to redirect the funds to another surety’s obligations. The court affirmed the reversal of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Holding
- Whether Pierce County established compliance with the standard of care as a matter of law.. Pierce County was not entitled to summary judgment because its declaration that the clerk followed customary practices did not establish the applicable standard of care or eliminate the factual question whether a reasonably prudent clerk would have verified which surety underwrote each bond before allocating the funds.
- Whether Signature had apparent authority to redirect Ranger’s funds to another surety’s obligations.. Pierce County was not entitled to summary judgment because it did not establish as a matter of law that Ranger made objective manifestations causing Pierce County reasonably to believe Signature had authority to redirect Ranger’s funds to obligations belonging to another surety.
Docket No. 80389-7