Attorneys

MARILEE C. ERICKSON

Shareholder

2010 Thomson Reuters Super Lawyers list

Practice

Marilee C. Erickson is a shareholder in the Reed McClure law firm. For over 20 years, Marilee has been representing parties in trial and appellate courts. She focuses her practice on insurance disputes, including bad faith claims, and defense of tort claims. She has handled premises, product, and professional liability claims.

She devotes a substantial portion of her practice to appellate matters. Marilee is a charter member of the Washington Appellate Lawyers Association (“WALA”). She frequently appears in Washington appellate courts. Prior to joining Reed McClure, Marilee served as law clerk at the Washington Court of Appeals, Division II. She is a contributing author of the Third Edition of the Washington Appellate Practice Deskbook.

Education

Seattle University, School of Law, 1986, J.D., Honors: cum laude

North Park College, 1982, B.A., Honors: cum laude

Background

Marilee was born and raised in Mount Vernon, Washington. She is admitted to practice in the State of Washington, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In addition to her WALA membership, Marilee has served on various bar committees and often speaks at CLEs. Marilee was on the King County Bar Foundation and served as President in 1999 to 2000. She is a member of the King County Bar Association and the Washington Defense Trial Lawyers.

Representative Cases

• Morin v. Burris, 160 Wn.2d 745, 161 P.3d 956 (2007) A default order and judgment were vacated because plaintiff failed to disclose the fact a lawsuit had been filed when the defendant’s liability insurer specifically inquired about the status of the case.

• Del Rosario v. Del Rosario, 152 Wn.2d 375, 97 P.3d 11 (2004) Challenge to a personal injury release involving a non-English speaker. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s application of the Finch “fairly and knowingly made” test for challenging a release. The Supreme Court held the Finch test only applied to latent injury claims. A party can only successfully challenge a release by establishing misrepresentation, overreaching, or undue influence.

• Aranda v. Haywood, 143 Wn.2d 321, 19 P.3d 406 (2001) Plaintiff who waited until after trial was estopped from challenging adequacy of proof of service of the request for trial de novo of a mandatory arbitration award.

• Ashley v. Hall, 138 Wn.2d 151, 978 P.2d 1055 (1999) Admission of lay opinion that did not meet requirements of ER 701 was harmless error where opponent did not timely object or more to strike.

• Mathioudakis v. Fleming, 140 Wn. App. 247, 161 P.3d 451 (2007) Court refused to apply Fisher-Finney rule — that a damages award is binding on the UM/UIM carrier — to the tortfeasor.
• Tribble v. Allstate Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 134 Wn. App. 163, 139 P.3d 373 (2006) Judgment against UIM/UM carrier in a trial for contract benefits is limited to the amount of the UIM/UM policy limits.

• Williams-Moore v. Estate of Shaw, 122 Wn. App. 871, 96 P.3d 433 (2003) Successfully challenged a plaintiff’s attempt to serve herself as personal representative of deceased defendant’s estate where plaintiff failed to post bond and take oath of personal representative.

• Pfaff v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 103 Wn. App. 829, 14 P.3d 837 (2000) The court must consider the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party seeking to vacate a default judgment when deciding whether the movant has presented “substantial evidence” of a “prima facie” defense.