Proof of parents' wrongful-death claims made easier

(Continued - Page 2)

The Supreme Court noted that RCW 4.20.020 establishes two tiers of beneficiaries. The first tier includes the decedent’s spouse or domestic partner, children, and stepchildren. First-tier beneficiaries need not prove dependence on the decedent for support. The statute provides that if no first-tier beneficiaries exist, a wrongful-death action may proceed for the benefit of parents or siblings “who may be dependent upon the deceased for support.” The statute does not define “dependent” or “support.”

The Court surveyed its prior decisions dating back to 1927. In the most recent case, Philippides v. Bernard, 151 Wn.2d 376 (2004), the Court had held that the parents must show more than emotional support. The cases generally have allowed claims by second-tier beneficiaries who can prove that they needed the decedent’s regular contributions of support, which typically were monetary. Those financial contributions must be more than occasional or casual gifts.

The defendants in Armantrout argued that the parents must prove “the provision of money or income, and not merely services.” The Court disagreed. The Court noted that in other reported decisions, plaintiffs proved substantial dependency by showing that the decedent had provided services that had a monetary value, not just an emotional one. But “our holding in Philippides, requiring parents to show something more than emotional dependence on adult children, should not … preclude truly dependent parents from claiming beneficiary status.”

Here, Kristen provided services that the jury concluded had a dollar value of more than $36,000 per year. That was enough to support the conclusion that the parents were dependent on her for support. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ordered the parents’ $1.15 million portion of the verdict reinstated.