Legal Opinion · Dissent

Heidebrink v. Moriwaki

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 1985No. 51017-2Published

1DissentGoodloe, J.

(dissenting) — I would affirm the Court of Appeals decision finding the statement of the insured to his *403insurance company is not protected by either the attorney-client privilege, RCW 5.60.060(2), or the work product immunity rule, CR 26(b)(3). The majority does not address the attorney-client privilege issue, limiting its discussion to the work product immunity rule issue. Because of my determination that neither applies, it is necessary to address both issues.

Attorney-Client Privilege

The attorney-client privilege provides:

An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Dike v. DikeWashington Supreme Court · 1968
  3. In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against McGlothlenWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  4. The People v. RyanIllinois Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Coburn v. SedaWashington Supreme Court · 1984

13 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