RMB attorney Kevin Clonts is featured in the most recent issue of CLM Magazine,
a publication from the Claims Management Litigation (CLM). The article, co-authored with four other attorneys, discusses achieving business development
and advancement for diverse professionals. It can be found at the following link January CLM National Magazine
The Washington Court of Appeals has overturned a total defense verdict in Clevenger. The Plaintiff in this case was Era Clevenger
on behalf of her husband, James Clevenger, who died from either lung cancer or mesothelioma.
Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC has been selected for the fourth year in a row to Oregon Business magazine’s list of the 100 Best Companies to Work
For in Oregon.
In addition to appearing in the March 2020 issue of Oregon Business magazine, Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth was honored at the 100 Best Companies to Work For awards banquet held March 5th at The Oregon Convention Center in Portland. The boutique law firm placed as the fifteenth best company to work for in the small business category which comprises organizations made up of 15 to 34 employees.
By Allen Eraut
An Oregon jury returned a $6 million verdict against Kaiser Gypsum, in case with heavy alternative exposures to amphibole-containing insulation. The
trial court applied joint and several liability, which is unusual for this jurisdiction, and may form the basis of an appeal.
We are pleased to report on a defense victory in this Washington asbestos matter in which Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth was part of the trial team. Coonrod v. Alcoa, et al.
was a King County, Washington case against various suppliers of asbestos-containing products and premises owners. Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth’s client
was Longview Fibre Paper & Pulp Mill.
Coonrod was a career insulator, and there was evidence he worked at Longview Fibre when his insulation employers were hired for insulation jobs. Plaintiff
presented two theories of liability: premises liability and retained control.
By Kevin Clonts
On October 3, the Washington Supreme Court held that employee claims adjusters are not personally liable for bad faith and Consumer Protection Act
(CPA) causes of action. In doing so, the court reversed the Court of Appeals, which had held that individual insurance professionals could be held