HWS Law Group

We're #hiring a new Legal Assistant in Seattle, Washington. Apply today or share this post with your network.

We're #hiring a new Senior Associate Attorney in Oregon. Apply today or share this post with your network.

We're #hiring a new Senior Associate Attorney in Washington State. Apply today or share this post with your network.

HWS Law Group is pleased to announce that Shaun Campbell has been promoted to Of Counsel as of August 28, 2024. Shaun is admitted to practice in federal and state court in Washington. His practice primarily focuses on personal injury, construction defect, and products liability. Before joining HWS Law Group LLP, he worked as in-house defense counsel for a Fortune 100 insurance company where he concentrated on representing the company’s insured individuals and assisting them through the intimidating and often unexpected process of civil litigation. Additionally, Shaun previously worked as Managing Attorney for a Seattle-based trustee company, representing national lenders in foreclosure matters. Shaun earned his undergraduate degrees in Sociology and Speech Communication from the University of Utah and earned his Juris Doctor from Gonzaga University School of Law.

Congratulations to Brandon J. Smith and Shaun Campbell of HWS Law Group on their defense verdict and successful defense of a manufacturer in a product liability claim at trial in San Juan County Superior Court. The plaintiff alleged to have suffered a traumatic brain injury at a local grocery store as a result of being hit in the head by the restroom door when a store employee was entering the restroom at the same time the plaintiff was exiting. The plaintiff alleged that, at the time of her injury, she was attempting to utilize a foot-operated door opener that allows users to open the door with their foot instead of using the door handle and that the body posture to use the device exacerbated her injuries. She claimed to require an extensive lifecare plan and loss of earnings in excess of $1.3 Million in addition to millions in general damages. Plaintiff originally filed suit against the store in early 2020, claiming her permanent injuries were due to the store employee’s negligence. She later amended her complaint to add product liability claims against the manufacturer of the foot-operated door opener. Brandon and Shaun were retained to represent the manufacturer against the product liability claims. Two months prior to trial, the store reached a confidential settlement agreement with the plaintiff, leaving the manufacturer and the product liability claims as the only remaining issues for trial. After eight days of trial in picturesque San Juan County, the jury returned a verdict in less than an hour, finding that the manufacturer had supplied a product that was reasonably safe, and that the manufacturer had supplied adequate warnings and instructions. The jury’s ruling was a great relief for Brandon and Shaun’s client after years of litigation.

Congratulations to Kelsey Shewbert of HWS Law Group on her recent success on defeating plaintiff’s motion to vacate a partial summary judgment order pursuant to CR 54(b). In this matter, plaintiff filed a (uninsured motorist) UIM claim against defendant, seeking damages relating to three surgeries with alleged medical specials exceeding $200,000. In addition, plaintiff alleged that he could no longer work in any capacity due to the accident. Near the close of discovery, defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiff’s alleged economic and non-economic damages, arguing that plaintiff could not meet his burden of proof that the accident proximately caused the alleged injuries and damages. In April 2022, the Court granted defendant’s motion, finding that plaintiff did not meet his burden of proof regarding the vast majority of medical treatment and limited recovery to approximately six months of chiropractic treatment, two weeks of wage loss, and noneconomic damages for approximately six months. Two years later, in April 2024, plaintiff filed a motion under CR 54(b), arguing that the order on partial summary judgment should be vacated because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding plaintiff’s injuries and damages. In support of the motion, plaintiff presented evidence which was available at the time of the original motion for partial summary judgment that plaintiff did not submit in opposition to the same. Plaintiff provide no rationale for his failure to submit the information in 2022 but argued that justice favors resolving the case on the merits. On June 21, 2024, after briefing and oral argument, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate, ruling that CR 54(b) should not be interpreted to permit a party who lost a motion for summary judgment to re-argue the same issue at any time before the judgment is entered, unless there is a change in circumstances, facts, or law.

We are immensely proud of Kelsey Shewbert - named Rising Star for 4 years in a row- https://lnkd.in/g_pDNrue and Anthony Scisciani named Super Lawyer for 5 years running-https://lnkd.in/ghXA6EmB.

Impact of Arbitration Ruling in Norwood v. Tacoma Anesthesia Associates: A Public Policy Perspective...https://lnkd.in/gJfsPsqT

Now hiring a senior litigation associate and legal assistant for our Seattle office - come be part of the HWS Law Group team.

We're #hiring a new Associate Attorney in Portland, Oregon Metropolitan Area. Apply today or share this post with your network.