Case Citator › Mahler v. Szucs

Mahler v. Szucs

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Citation
957 P.2d 632
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
42 of 42
Citing cases (total)
42
Treatment dates
2012–2015
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Mahler v. Szucs was overruled in part on whether a dispute over an insurer's duty to share recovery expenses qualifies for Olympic Steamship attorney fees. The Washington Supreme Court's later decision in Matsyuk v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. treated that dispute as one about coverage and said its more recent conflicting rule controlled.
More on how this was screened

Mahler's central rule requiring insurers to share the cost of a recovery from which they seek reimbursement remains in force. A later court also criticized its prejudgment interest dictum. All 42 flagged citations have been read; the two treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

42 later cases cite Mahler v. Szucs; 42 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Mahler v. Szucs?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Washington Supreme Court displaced Mahler's conclusion that a dispute over the insurer's expense-sharing duty does not support Olympic Steamship attorney fees.

    Matsyuk v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · Supreme Court of Washington · filed

    But before Woodley, the court in Mahler suggested that cases such as these do not involve a coverage dispute, but rather a dispute about the value of the right to reimbursement, for which Olympic Steamship fees are not appropriate. Mahler, 135 Wn.2d at 430-32 (concluding that the dispute between Mahler and State Farm was not a coverage dispute, but rather a dispute about the value of the right to reimbursement). Woodley did not discuss this portion of Mahler, nor has it been relied upon since. ... As a matter of construction, when there is conflicting case law, Woodley should control, as this court’s more recent pronouncement on the subject. ... But more importantly, the scenario we are faced with here is properly characterized as a coverage dispute, not as a dispute about the value of the reimbursement right.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Criticized

  • The Court of Appeals called Mahler's suggestion that the postjudgment interest statute governs prejudgment interest an inaccurate dictum.

    TJ Landco, LLC v. Harley C. Douglass, Inc. · Washington Court of Appeals, Division Three · filed

    Some courts wrongly cite to the postjudgment interest statute, RCW 4.56.110, as the basis for an award of prejudgment interest due to dicta in Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wn.2d 398,429, 957 P.2d 632 (1998) (impliedly overruled on other grounds by Matsyuk v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 173 Wn.2d 643, 272 P.3d 802 (2012)), where the court stated that prejudgment interest was allowed at the statutory judgment interest rate even while rejecting the claim for prejudgment interest. ... Although in many instances the same interest rate will apply under either statute, we believe it is inaccurate to rely upon the postjudgment interest rate statute for calculation of prejudgment interest.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Mahler v. Szucs and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace