Legal Opinion

Pietz v. Indermuehle

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided January 16, 1998No. 20497-5-IIPublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeinfeld, J.

—

The trial court summarily dismissed Edward Pietz’s action against his former partners for indemnification, contribution, and breach of fiduciary duties. Pietz appeals, contending that the trial court erred in ruling that these claims were time barred. We hold that Pietz’s partnership indemnity/contribution claim did not accrue until he paid the settlement and was, therefore, timely. We also find that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Pietz’s contribution claim under the Tort Reform Act was timely. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal of these claims…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. LaMon v. ButlerWashington Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Sherman v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Sherman v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Goodman v. GoodmanWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Miller v. U.S. BankCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1994

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hudson v. CondonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
  2. Hudson v. CondonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
  3. Pietz v. IndermuehleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1998
  4. Veith v. Xterra Wetsuits, LLCCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
  5. Peerless Division, Lear Siegler, Inc. v. United States Special Hydraulic Cylinders Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1999

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API