Ambach v. French
Decision Date | 24 September 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 81107-5.,81107-5. |
Parties | Teresa AMBACH and Michael Ambach, wife and husband, individually and the marital community composed thereof, Respondents, v. H. Graeme FRENCH, M.D. and Jane Doe French, individually and the marital community composed thereof; Kelly Landle, Pac and John Doe Landle, individually and the marital community composed thereof; Three Forks Orthopaedics, P.C., a Washington professional corporation; Whitman County Public Hospital District No. 3, d/b/a Whitman Hospital and Medical Center; John and Jane Does 1-10; Jonathan P. Keeve, M.D.; Northwest Orthopaedic Specialists, P.S., a Washington professional service corporation; and Karlene A. Arguinchona, M.D., Petitioners. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Kristin Margret Houser, James D. Hailey, Lindsay L. Halm, Schroeter Goldmark Bender, Seattle, WA, Patrick Kie Fannin, Spokane, WA, for Respondents.
Stephen Craig Haskell, Stephen Haskell Law Offices PLLC, D. Roger Reed, Reed & Giesa, Spokane, WA, for Petitioners.
Stewart Andrew Estes, Keating Bucklin & McCormack, Erin Healy Hammond, Fain Sheldon Anderson & VanDerhoef PLLC, Carol Sue Janes, Bennett Bigelow & Leedom PS, Seattle, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Defense Trial Lawyers.
George M. Ahrend, Dano Gilbert & Ahrend PLLC, Moses Lake, Bryan Patrick Harnetiaux, Spokane, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington State Association for Justice Foundation.
Mary H. Spillane, Daniel W. Ferm, Williams Kastner & Gibbs PLLC, Seattle, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington State Medical Association, American Medical Association, and Physicians Insurance a Mutual Company.
¶ 1 In this case we are asked to decide whether the increased cost a consumer pays for surgery instead of alternative medical treatment constitutes an injury to "business or property" as it is used in Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA), chapter 19.86 RCW. Where the increased costs are incurred as a result of a personal injury, we hold that the monetary injury cannot be separated from the personal injury and a claim under the CPA cannot be maintained. We reverse the Court of Appeals.
¶ 2 On November 16, 2001, Teresa Ambach visited Dr. Graeme French at Whitman Hospital and Medical Center complaining of neck pain and left arm numbness. On February 12, 2002, French performed surgery on Ambach's left shoulder. The surgery consisted of performing an anterior and posterior capsular shift and insertion of five suture rods and anchors with fiber wire structure. Following her surgery, Ambach complained to French of excessive pain in her shoulder. She presented herself twice in March 2002 to the emergency room at Sacred Heart Medical Center with excessive pain. Also following her surgery, Ambach sought a second opinion with a different orthopedic surgeon. After x-rays and an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) by the second orthopedic surgeon and an appointment with the University of Washington Medical Center, Ambach was diagnosed with osteomyelitis1 from a staph infection in her left shoulder. On May 15, 2002, Ambach's shoulder was irrigated and debrided; all of the anchors placed by Dr. French during the February 2002 surgery were removed. On September 10, 2002, Ambach had an open fusion performed on her left shoulder. According to Ambach, "[a]s a result of the surgery and subsequent fusion, the Ambachs have suffered various financial losses." Br. of Appellant at 5.
¶ 3 On January 28, 2004, Ambach filed a complaint against French alleging professional negligence and violation of the CPA.2 French responded with a motion for summary judgment in which he argued that Ambach failed to implicate the "entrepreneurial aspects of [French's] practice of medicine" and that she failed to show harm to a specific "business or property" interest. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 59. The motion went before the trial judge only on the issue of whether Ambach's injury was to her "business or property."
¶ 4 The trial court granted French's motion for summary judgment on the CPA claim and held:
[I]f the claim for damages as requested by the plaintiff could be upheld in this case, there would be almost no case involving medical negligence issues, malpractice, and so forth, in which the claims could not be brought.
It seems to me that the types of economic damages which are under discussion here ... are exactly the traditional types of damages that flow from negligence from the ordinary types of tort claims which have always been present.
¶ 5 On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment and held that "allegations of economic loss due to the increased cost of surgery over the cost of more conservative treatment are sufficient to satisfy the damages requirement [of the CPA]." Ambach v. French, 141 Wash.App. 782, 790, 173 P.3d 941 (2007). French petitioned this court for review. We granted review and now reverse the Court of Appeals.
¶ 6 RCW 19.86.090 allows anyone who has been "injured in his or her business or property by a violation" of the CPA to bring a civil action in which she may recover actual damages, trial costs, and attorney fees. The trial court may, "in its discretion," award treble damages. Id. To state a prima facie claim under the CPA, a plaintiff must "establish five distinct elements: (1) unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) occurring in trade or commerce; (3) public interest impact; (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property; (5) causation." Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wash.2d 778, 780, 719 P.2d 531 (1986).
¶ 7 While "[t]he injury involved need not be great," or even quantifiable, it must be an injury to "`business or property.'" Id. at 792, 719 P.2d 531; Mason v. Mortgage Am., Inc., 114 Wash.2d 842, 854, 792 P.2d 142 (1990) ( ). "Business or property" is not defined in chapter 19.86 RCW. Black's Law Dictionary defines "business" as "[a] commercial enterprise carried on for profit; a particular occupation or employment habitually engaged in for livelihood or gain." Black's Law Dictionary 226 (9th ed.2009). "[P]roperty" is defined as "[t]he right to possess, use, and enjoy a determinate thing ...; the right of ownership." Id. at 1335. The legal definition of "property" appears to have narrowed over time and does not include rights to one's person or body:
Id. at 1336 (alterations in original) (quoting John Salmond, Jurisprudence 423-24 (Glanville L. Williams ed., 10th ed.1947)).
¶ 8 The legislature's use of the phrase "business or property" in the CPA is restrictive of other categories of injury and is "`used in the ordinary sense [to] denote[] a commercial venture or enterprise.'" Stevens v. Hyde Athletic Indus., Inc., 54 Wash.App. 366, 370, 773 P.2d 871 (1989) (quoting Hamman v. United States, 267 F.Supp. 420, 432 (D.Mont.1967)); Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wash.2d 299, 318, 858 P.2d 1054 (1993) ( ).
¶ 9 Washington courts have found injury to "business or property" where the defendant's act in violation of the CPA caused the plaintiff to suffer loss of professional or business reputation, loss of goodwill, or inability to tend to a business establishment. Nordstrom, Inc. v. Tampourlos, 107 Wash.2d 735, 739-41, 733 P.2d 208 (1987) ( ); Fisons Corp., 122 Wash.2d at 318, 858 P.2d 1054 ( ); Sign-O-Lite Signs, Inc. v. DeLaurenti Florists, Inc., 64 Wash.App. 553, 563-64, 825 P.2d 714 (1992) ( ).
¶ 10 Personal injury damages, however, "are not compensable [damages] under the CPA" and do not constitute injury to business or property. Fisons, 122 Wash.2d at 317-18, 858 P.2d 1054 ( ); Stevens, 54 Wash.App. at 369-70, 773 P.2d 871 ( medical expenses); Hiner v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 91 Wash.App. 722, 730, 959 P.2d 1158 (1998) (, )rev'd on other grounds, 138 Wash.2d 248, 263-64, 978 P.2d 505 (1999) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Certification from the U.S. Dist. Court for the W. Dist. of Wash. in Krista Peoples v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n
-
Frias v. Asset Foreclosure Servs., Inc.
...166 Wash.2d 27, 57, 204 P.3d 885 (2009). The financial consequences of such personal injuries are also excluded. Ambach v. French, 167 Wash.2d 167, 178, 216 P.3d 405 (2009). Otherwise, however, the business and property injuries compensable under the CPA are relatively expansive. ¶ 40 Becau......
-
Smith v. Stockdale
...person injured as a result of a violation of the CPA may seek to recover actual damages, attorney fees, and costs. Ambach v. French, 167 Wash.2d 167, 171, 216 P.3d 405 (2009). A court may also award treble damages for a violation of the CPA. Id. ¶ 20 The CPA does not define the terms “unfai......
-
Hale v. Bridge Builders, Ltd.
... ... Under the Consumer Protection Act, an injury need not be great or quantifiable, but it must be an injury to business or property. Ambach v. French, 167 Wn.2d 167, 171-72, 216 P.3d 405 (2009). Personal injury damages are not compensable under the Consumer Protection Act. Ambach, ... ...
-
Washington. Practice Text
...Corp., 738 P.2d 665, 680 (Wash. 1987); Consol. Dairy Prods. v. Bar-T Ranch Dairy, 642 P.2d 1240, 1247 (Wash. 1982). 235. Ambach v. French, 216 P.3d 405, 408 (Wash. 2009); Washington State Physicians Ins. Exch . & Ass’n v. Fison’s Corp. , 858 P.2d 1054, 1064 (Wash. 1993). 236. Consol. Dairy ......