October 1, 2012 Thru September 30, 2013
the Pool’s By-laws, Clark County and Slagle again appealed the initial (Claims Manager’s)
coverage denial as to the allegations in the Amended Complaint to the Pool’s Executive Director.
On September 13, 2013, the Executive Director issued his decision affirming the initial coverage
denial. On October 12, 2013, Clark County and Slagle appealed the Executive Director’s decision
pursuant to the Bylaw’s appeal procedure to the Executive Committee of the WCRP Board of
Directors. On November 1, 2013, following another hearing before the Executive Committee on
Clark County and Slagle’s new appeal, the Executive Committee voted to affirm the coverage
denial and issued its written decision in support of this action.
On September 27, 2013, Clark County and Slagle agreed to a settlement with plaintiffs Davis and
Northrop which was memorialized pursuant to Washington Court Rule 2A. Under the terms of the
settlement, the defendants agreed to pay each of the plaintiffs $5.25 million and to enter into a
stipulated judgment and assignment of rights against defendants’ “insurers”, including without
limitation, the WCRP, in the amount of $17.25 million to each plaintiff. The plaintiffs agreed not
to execute against Clark County and Slagle above the $5.25 million payments. On October 23,
2013, Clark County and Donald Slagle, and Davis and Northrop, entered into a formal Agreement
memorializing the terms of the CR 2A agreement. On October 30, 2013, the United States District
Court in the Underlying Lawsuit entered a judgment against Clark County and Slagle in favor of
Davis and Northrop in the amount of $34.5 million. On December 19, 2013, the United States
District Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Davis and Northrop’s request in the
Underlying Lawsuit that the court determine that the $34.5 million Judgment was reasonable.
Clark County and Slagle have taken the position that the Pool’s 2009-2010 JSILP year provides
coverage for the Underlying Lawsuit. The Pool has denied any duty to defend or indemnify Clark
County and Slagle for the Underlying Lawsuit. The Pool also determined that the assignment of
insuring rights by Clark County and former employee Donald Slagle to be both in violation of the
terms of the applicable JSILP and a breach of the provisions of the WCRP membership’s
Interlocal Cooperation Agreement.
WCRP v. Northrop, Davis, Clark County, and Donald Slagle – Cowlitz County Action. On
November 4, 2013, the WCRP filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Breach of Contract in
Cowlitz County Superior Court against Clark County, Donald Slagle, Larry Davis and Alan
Northrop. The Pool is claiming breach of contract and is seeking a declaratory judgment that the
WCRP had no duty to defend or indemnify Clark County or Donald Slagle in the USDC
litigation. Defendants are expected to request by motion that the trial court transfer the case to
King or Pierce Counties, and the Pool will counter. It is probable that the venue transfer request
will be denied, and we expect that the Court will eventually rule that the Pool had no obligation to
defend or indemnify Clark County and Slagle in the USDC action.
Northrop/Davis v. WCRP – King County Action. On November 26, 2013, Davis and Northrop
delivered a Tort Claim Notice to the WCRP offices, which among other documents, included a
complaint filed in King County Superior Court against the WCRP by Larry Davis and Alan
Northrop as the alleged assignees of Clark County. The WCRP is challenging the King County
venue due to the pending Cowlitz County lawsuit addressing identical issues and the purported
assignees’ filing entitlement. A favorable venue ruling is expected, but if needed the Pool will
seek and expects dismissal of this lawsuit based upon the assignment restriction imposed upon
Clark County and that WCRP is not an insurer.
Coverage Concern – Pacheco v. Davalos/Kitsap County: Kitsap County and Frank Davalos are
defendants in a tort action filed November 1, 2013 by Karyssa Marie Pacheco in Kitsap County Superior
Court which was removed to the U.S. District Court (“Underlying Lawsuit”). Pacheco alleges that Davalos
had unwanted sexual contact with her between January 2005 and January 2007 while working as an
employee for Kitsap County. Davalos was employed by the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office as a Sheriff’s
Deputy during the pertinent period. Davalos requested that Kitsap County defend and indemnify him
against Pacheco’s claims.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Washington State Auditor's Office
31