Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1013299.pdf

with the liability issue resolved as a matter of law, the parties arbitrated the amount

of damages due to Zimmerman. Id. at 688.

The defendants in Zimmerman did not request a trial de novo after arbitration.

Instead, they appealed the judgment entered on the arbitration award and the trial

court’s order granting partial summary judgment. Id. Zimmerman called foul,

arguing that under Cook, the appeal of the summary judgment order was invalid in

the absence of a timely trial de novo request. Id. at 690-91. Distinguishing Cook,

the Zimmerman court noted that denial of summary judgment meant the arbitrator in

Cook could “‘resolve both the question of Selland’s duty to the Cooks and, of course,

whether that duty had been breached.’” Id. at 691 (quoting Cook, 81 Wn. App. at

101). In contrast, the order granting summary judgment in Zimmerman “limited the

scope of the arbitrator’s determination to the amount of damages and affected the

judgment entered following arbitration.” Id. at 692. The court concluded that “[f]or

these reasons, and because there was no appeal as of right until a final judgment [on

the arbitration award] was entered, we hold that [the defendants’] appeal is properly

before us and reach the merits of their claim.” Id.

While the distinction between an order denying and an order granting

summary judgment may at first glance seem sensible, it fails in this context on closer

inspection. The legislature created the arbitration scheme in chapter 7.06 RCW to

“‘reduce congestion in the courts and delays in hearing civil cases.’” Nevers, 133

18
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Crossroads Management, LLC v. Ridgway et al., No. 101329-9