Seattle Office

Liv Wernecke is Of Counsel, with more than 50 years’ experience at Betts Patterson Mines P.S. He is part of the Estate Planning and Probate practice area and also is a member of the firm’s Business Transactions Practice Group.

Mr. Wernecke’s practice covers estate planning, succession planning for closely held business, real estate and investment entities, compensation and retirement arrangements, probate, trust creation and administration, individual, estate and entity taxation, guardianships, and certain aspects of international trade.

He was co-counsel of a successful Washington Supreme Court case upholding the application of the equal protection clause to state taxes and has lectured at Golden Gate University in taxation of S Corporations, partnerships and estates.

Representative Cases

Estate plan drafted for

• Couple requiring minimal language in federally taxable estate ;
• Couple with federally taxable estate composed of illiquid encumbered real property
• Couple with federally taxable estate largely in Individual Retirement Accounts;
• Couple with federally taxable Estate using grantor retained annuity trusts and qualified personal residence trusts
• Couple requiring gifts in closely held business ownerships
• Beneficiary of a taxable trust and a difficult business/trust arrangement

Estate/Trust administration

• Deceased spouse with JTWROS accounts, real estate and disclaimers to reduce survivor’s estate
• Substantial charitable bequests distributed in several months
• Deceased spouse with disclaimer to reduce estate taxes
• Estate requiring real property sales for distribution
• Assist attorneys with probate litigation and dispute resolution

Business Entities

• Draft Buy-Sell Agreement
• Draft Buy-Sell Agreement for elderly shareholders
• Draft private foundation documents
• Draft limited liability agreements for business succession

Real Property (often in trusts or Estates)

• Prepare sale and security documents for commercial buildings
• Assist with clean up and sale of contaminated properties

Taxation

• Change large IRS estate tax claim in to equally large refund on real estate sold during estate administration
• Dealt with IRS retirement plan claims
• Dealt with audit on real estate values

Mary Ruffin is an attorney in the Seattle office of Betts, Patterson & Mines, P.S. Her practice focuses on representing clients in a range of commercial and insurance-related disputes. Ms. Ruffin brings a thoughtful and strategic approach to litigation, informed by her previous experience working on complex transactional matters for both public agencies and private-sector clients.

Ms. Ruffin earned her bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Law, Societies, and Justice from the University of Washington, and her Juris Doctor from the University of Washington School of Law. While in law school, she was a Christine Gregoire Fellow, a Hazelton Research Fellow, and a national competitor on the Thurgood Marshall Mock Trial Team.

Ms. Ruffin currently serves on the Board of Directors for Solid Ground and is a member of the Loren Miller Bar Association and Washington Women Lawyers.

Sean Paulich’s practice emphasizes insurance coverage, insurance defense, business transaction, and design professional liability matters. He is a member of the firm’s Insurance Coverage, Business & Corporate, and Design Professionals groups.

Mr. Paulich earned his B.A. in History from the University of Washington and his J.D. from Seattle University School of Law. Prior to attending law school, Mr. Paulich worked for KIRO radio, Amazon.com, and the King County Bar Association. While in law school, Mr. Paulich worked for the Washington State Bar Association’s Volunteer Legal Services and Catholic Community Services’ Legal Action Center.

In his free time, Mr. Paulich enjoys music and songwriting. He has performed live at many Seattle venues. Mr. Paulich also enjoys cycling, playing soccer, and cheering on Seattle’s home team Sounders, Mariners, and Seahawks.

Patrick M. Paulich is Of Counsel with Betts Patterson Mines P.S. where he practices insurance coverage, environmental law, construction law, product liability and general insurance defense. Prior to joining BPM, Patrick was President and Managing Shareholder at Thorsrud Cane & Paulich in Seattle from 1988 until 2015. From 1980 until 1988, he was an attorney at the Seattle law firm Tewell, Thorpe & Findlay.

Patrick is rated “AV Preeminent,” the highest possible rating in both legal ability and ethical standards, by Martindale-Hubbell and has been named a Washington State “Super Lawyer” from 2003 through 2021 by Super Lawyers Magazine. He earned his B.A., magna cum laude, from the University of Washington in 1976 and his J.D. from the University of Washington in 1980.

Scott Noel is a trial attorney with Betts Patterson Mines in Seattle, Washington. He was admitted to practice law in 2002 in Florida and 2005 in Washington. He joined Safeco in 2008. He practices in the areas of Construction Defect and insurance defense. He has tried two complex construction defect claims in Washington both resulting in defense verdicts. He has tried multiple negligence cases in Washington and Florida as well.

Significant appellate cases: Satomi Owners Ass’n v. Satoomi, LLC, 167 Wn.2d 781, 225 P.3d 213 (2009); Edifice Construction Company, Inc. v. Arrow Insulation, Inc. 12. Wn.App. 1019 (2020); Wolff v. Design Guild Homes of WA, Inc. 172 Wn.App. 1034 (2012); NW Cascade Inc. v. WA State Department of L&I, 2. Wn. App 2nd 1056 (2018); IMCO General Construction Inc. v. Department of L&I of State of WA, 2 Wn.App.2D 1014 (2018).

Before joining Betts Patterson Mines, Mr. Noel began his career working as an insurance defense attorney in Florida specializing in construction defect, as well as defending local school boards in North Florida and a national rental car company in cases all over the state of Florida. After moving to Seattle, Mr. Noel worked for two large national insurance carriers as their construction defect attorney as well as a small boutique construction defect firm. Mr. Noel also had a two-year stint defending contractors before the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals for safety citations, including numerous trials for Stute violations.

Mr. Noel received his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, North Carolina. He is a member of Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity. While in the Army, Attorney Noel studied Arabic (Egyptian dialect) at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California.

When not working, Mr. Noel enjoys spending time traveling with his family.

James represents businesses in “bet the company” cases. According to a law partner, “clients want James on the field when the game is on the line.” Like a seasoned quarterback, James focuses narrowly on the goal line. James calls plays that are carefully designed to score quickly and efficiently, mindfully respecting his clients’ budget and goals. James uses his years of experience in court to call the right plays at the right time.

James joined Betts Patterson Mines, P.S. in 1980. Since then he has counseled hundreds of clients in a diverse array of complex business disputes including trade secrets, securities, estate, and consumer class action cases. He has represented manufacturers, engineers, distributors, banks, general contractors, developers, insurance brokers, and technology companies. James is a seasoned litigator whose notable engagements include:

• Defending a Texas-based Fortune 100 manufacturing conglomerate in a suit brought by the largest construction contractor in the Pacific Northwest. The dispute involved a multi-million-dollar contract for the sale of massive diesel generator sets that were specially designed to power an Air Force radar station on a remote Aleutian island. The contractor sued the manufacturer for delaying the project. The manufacturer recovered $2.4 million on its counterclaim.
• Representing an automobile manufacturer that purchased 12,000 motor vehicle engines in Japan for assembly in Windsor, Ontario. The engines were worth $13 million. They had been shipped from Japan to Washington for rail transport to Windsor and were delayed at Sea-Land’s Tacoma dock due to a major West Coast Teamsters strike. Because the delay threatened to shut down the manufacturer’s Windsor minivan plant, the manufacturer brought an emergency replevin action. The engines were released from Sea-Land’s dock within 24 hours.
• Defending the leading manufacturer of digital multimeters in Europe against color-combination-related trade dress claims brought by the largest manufacturer of digital multimeters in the U.S. The U.S. manufacturer claimed that the French manufacturer infringed trademark rights that it had developed in its contrasting yellow and dark color scheme. The case settled on the eve of trial. The French manufacturer acquiesced in the U.S. manufacturer’s trademark rights in the U.S. in exchange for a perpetual, paid up license that allowed it to continue to use its traditional corporate colors on key product lines.
• Defending hotel owners against securities fraud, racketeering, breach of fiduciary duty, and wrongful withholding of wages claims arising out of a troubled hotel acquisition. The defense was seller’s remorse—that is, that the plaintiff withdrew from the partnership because he could not tolerate the risk. The plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied, and the plaintiff’s lis pendens was quashed. The jury returned a defense verdict after deliberating for only two hours following a two week jury trial.
• Representing a decedent’s former business partner in a struggle with the decedent’s estate for control of a corporation. The corporation owned a casino. Initially, the partner won a preliminary injunction blocking an estate-backed special shareholders meeting for the purpose of removing the corporation’s board and halting a 3,333% rent increase. The partner also won summary judgments thwarting the estate’s infringing use of the casino’s trademark and awarding the corporation $3 million on its counterclaim.
• Representing a computer network consulting company in a suit against a former employee who secretly concluded an independent contract with a major customer by presenting proprietary technical information as his own. Following a one-week trial in federal court, an Oregon jury returned a verdict for compensatory and punitive damages for violations of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
• Representing an Alaska corporation in a suit to recover losses it suffered due to theft and mismanagement by the manager of its retail stores and to remove a member of its board of directors who covered up the fraud. Following a one-week jury trial in Alaska Superior Court, the retailer recovered a judgment for compensatory and punitive damages against the former manager and the director. The court also barred the director from re-election to the board pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 10.06.463.

Representative Cases

• Obtained summary judgment that insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify under Washington law against construction defect allegations. Also obtained summary judgment dismissal of Washington State Insurance Fair Claims Act (IFCA) cause of action when insurer client denied duty to defend outright without defending insured under a reservation of rights or filing a declaratory judgment action. Chase Constr. N.W. Inc. v. AIX Specialty Ins. Co., No. C15-19, 2015 WL 12001272 (W.D. Wash. June 23, 2015).
• Drafted coverage analysis and letter denying coverage for claim that client’s Commercial General Liability policy covered the insured contractor’s liability for “get to” or “tear out” costs. This resulted in the client saving a six-figure sum for defense and indemnity expenses.
• Montana insured was sued for infringing on plaintiff’s intellectual property rights. Drafted coverage analysis and letter denying defense and indemnity that resulted in insured dropping bad faith claims against client.
• Advised Commercial General Liability insurers on segregating covered damages from excluded ones, making the correct indemnity payments, and avoiding extra-contractual liability in two cases (Oregon and Washington) in which arbitrators made large lump sum construction defect awards without supporting detail.
• Represented a surplus lines Commercial General Liability insurer. Following an audit, the insured contractor sued for a refund of its premium and named our client (the surplus lines insurer), the surplus lines broker, and producing broker. The insured also alleged failure to comply with Washington’s surplus lines statutes, Consumer Protection Act violations, and professional negligence. The suit was dismissed, and our client paid nothing.
• Advised a Commercial General Liability carrier of an insured subcontractor, which was a defendant in a Washington state condominium construction defect suit in which the owners’ association alleged $15 million to repair the complex, and the insured’s portion was $335,000. Our client and four other carriers were defending the insured under a reservation of rights. The insured’s liability was settled for $7,500, and our client’s share was $1,750.
• Advised the Commercial General Liability carrier of a large commercial potato grower and a potato growers’ association. The insureds were defendants in price fixing federal suits in California and Idaho. Our unchallenged coverage denial saved our client tens of thousands of dollars in defense costs.
• Advised a condominium developer’s Commercial General Liability carrier. The condominium developer was a defendant in a Washington state construction defect suit. Our unchallenged denial of the duty to defend or indemnify under the sold or alienated premises exclusion saved the client hundreds of thousands of dollars in defense costs and indemnity payments.
• Advised the Commercial General Liability insurer of a Montana plant nursery. The insured nursery was a defendant in a federal patent infringement suit set in a Missouri federal court. Our unchallenged denial of the duty to defend or indemnify saved the client tens of thousands of dollars in defense expenses and indemnity proceeds.
• Advised the inland marine insurer of a Montana contractor. The contractor sought coverage for defective construction of part of a project to build a cell phone tower. Advised carrier to indemnify saving client from extra-contractual exposure and associated expenses for incorrect denial of a claim involving esoteric coverage issues.

In recent years, James has also developed a substantial mid-market transactional practice that includes business planning, estate planning, and commercial real estate. He works with clients at every stage of the business life cycle, offering clients advice from “cradle to grave.”

James is admitted to practice in Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Idaho. He is rated “AV” by Martindale-Hubbell and has been recognized as a “Super Lawyer” each year from 2003-2025. James served as the firm’s managing partner for 15 years. He graduated from University of Oregon with a B.S. in Economics in 1977 and received his J.D. from University of Washington in 1980.

James is one of the firm’s representatives at LAWorld. LAWorld is a network of 57 mid-sized law firms covering most of the major commercial centers around the world, with more than 1350 lawyers in 100 cities. LAWorld’s purpose is to provide its members’ clients with instant access to quality legal advice anywhere in the world.

James is a frequent writer and speaker in the legal community. His topics include developments in antitrust law that impact intellectual property licensing transactions and law firm organizational health.

Representative Cases

APPELLATE DECISIONS

• Ceva Freight, LLC v. Employment Dep’t, 279 Or. App. 570 (2016), rev. denied, 360 Or. 751 (2016).
• Bryant v. Am. Seafoods Co., 348 Fed. Appx. 256 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming dismissal for lack of standing).
• Grand View Homes L.L.C. v. Cascade Testing Laboratory, Inc., No. 60217-9-I, 2008 WL 4053439 (Wash. App. Div. I September 2, 2008) (notation of unreported decision at 146 Wash. App. 1044).
• Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. The James Marshall Hendrix Foundation, No. 05-36029, 2007 WL 1748354 (9th Cir. June 18, 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 908 (2008).
• Stonebridge Securities, LLC v. Devine, No. 58458-8-I, 2007 WL 1464431 (Wash. App. Div. I May 21, 2007) (notation of unreported decision at 138 Wash. App. 1047).
• Martinez v. Cape Fox Corporation, 113 P.3d 1226 (Alaska 2005).
• Shields v. Cape Fox Corporation, 42 P.3d 1083 (Alaska 2002).
• Omega Environmental, Inc. v. Blohorn, No. 00-35211, 2001 WL 1356831 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2001).
• Undersigned Shareholders of the Cape Fox Corporation v. Cape Fox Corporation, No. 0990 (Alaska Sup. Ct. Aug. 30, 2000).
• Hewitt v. Hewitt, No. 36607-6-I, 1997 WL 306417 (Wash. App. Div. I June 9, 1997).
• Hamilton Properties, Inc. v. Associated Grocers, Inc., 144 Or. App. 171, 925 P.2d 1237 (1996).
• City of Ketchikan d/b/a Ketchikan Public Utilities v. Cape Fox Corporation, 65 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 1995), opinion withdrawn, 74 F.3d 191, opinion replaced, 85 F.3d 1381 (1996).
• BBC Dodge, Inc. v. Chrysler Corporation, No. 36799-4-I, 1996 WL 146723 (Wash. App. Div. I Apr. 1, 1996).
• Ketchikan Public Utilities, 74 Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n ¶ 62,113, 1996 WL 21903 (Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n Jan. 22, 1996).
• Tongass Alaska Girl Scout Council, Inc. v. Cape Fox Corporation, No. 94-36177, 1995 WL 555747 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 1995) (notation of unreported decision at 67 F.3d 309).
• Hewitt v. Hewitt, 78 Wash. App. 447, 896 P.2d 1312 (1995).
• Wright Schuchart, Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc., Nos. 93-35778, 93-35946 and 93-36074, 1994 WL 621889 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 1995) (notation of unreported decision at 40 F.3d 1247).
• Beal v. Aexel, No. 16355-1-II (Wash. App. Div. II Feb. 23, 1995).
• Overlake Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Corporation, Nos. 25917-2-I and 26122-3-I (Wash. App. Div. I Aug. 26, 1991).
• Richter v. Trimberger, 50 Wash. App. 780, 750 P.2d 1279 (1988).
• Rawson v. United Steelworkers of America, 111 Idaho 630, 726 P.2d 742 (1986).
• Hewson Construction, Inc. v. Reintree Corporation, 101 Wash. 2d 819, 685 P.2d 1062 (1984).
• Hoppenbrouwer v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, No. 83-3752 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 1984) (notation of unreported decision at 730 F.3d 766).
• Cascade Cabinet Co. v. Western Cabinet & Millwork, Inc., 710 F.2d 1366 (9th Cir. 1983).
• Williams v. Seattle School District No. 1, 97 Wash. 2d 215, 643 P.2d 426 (1982).

Publications & Presentations

• The “Nuts and Bolts” of Practice Group Management, Address at LAWorld Annual Meeting in Santiago, Chile (April 12, 2018).
• Making Your Law Firm a Great Place to Work (and Keeping It That Way), Address at LAWorld Annual Meeting in Barcelona, Spain (May 3, 2017).
• Consent Judgments in Washington: What You Need to Know to Keep from Getting Burned, Address at RSUI Group Annual In-House Seminars in Atlanta (April 24, 2012) and Los Angles (May 14, 2012).
• Developments in Antitrust Law That Impact Intellectual Property Licensing Transactions, 78 Defense Counsel Journal 274 (July 2011).
• Recent Developments in Antitrust Law that Impact Intellectual Property Licensing Transactions, Address at the Fifth Annual Conference on Complex Licensing Transactions (August 26, 2010).
• Antitrust and Intellectual Property: Where is that Crossroads in 2010?, Address at Antitrust Enforcement in Global Technology Markets Conference (June 17, 2010).
• Understanding the Professional Capabilities of LAWorld’s American Firms, Address at LAWorld’s Annual Meeting in Dublin, Ireland (April 29, 2008).
• Threats to Excellence in Civil Trial Advocacy, Address at the Installation of the Betts, Patterson & Mines Professorship in Trial Advocacy at The University of Washington School of Law (April 11, 2008).
• Losing Priority: Security Interests in Collateral Obtained in Contravention of the Federal Securities Laws, Defense Research Institute Commercial Litigation Committee Newsletter The Business Suit 1-2 (Nov. 2005).
• Composite Trademarks: Deconstructing the Similarity of Marks Element in a Trademark Infringement Action, 72 Defense Counsel Journal 347 (Oct. 2005).
• The Basics of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Address at the International Association of Defense Counsel Annual Meeting (July 4, 2005).
• New Class Action Settlement Notice Requirements Made to Combat Clientless Litigation, 18 LAWorld International Business Briefing 5 (May 2005).
• Removing “Loss” from Loss Causation: An Assessment of the Loss Causation Pleading Requirement in the Ninth Circuit, Washington Defense Lawyers: Defense News 1-2, 4 (Feb./Mar. 2005).
• Defending Managed Earnings Cases by Understanding Revenue Recognition, 71 Defense Counsel Journal 289 (July 2004).
• Single Application International Trademark Registration Now Available to the United States, International Association of Defense Counsel Intellectual Property Committee Newsletter 1-2 (Feb. 2004).
• A Few Things Civil Trial Lawyers Need to Know About the Fifth Amendment, Washington Defense Lawyers: Defense News 1-5, 14 (Sept. 2003).
• Survey Evidence of Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Cases: How Much Confusion Is Enough? International Association of Defense Counsel Intellectual Property Committee Newsletter 1-10 (April 2002).
• Opposing Damages Claims Based Upon Discounted Cash Flow Analysis in Business Cases, International Association of Defense Counsel Business Litigation Committee Newsletter 1-4 (June 2000).
• Barring Consequential Damages Despite the Failure of an Exclusive Remedy, International Association of Defense Counsel Business Litigation Committee Newsletter 1-5 (Sept. 1999).
• ANCSA 14c and Shareholder Benefit Issues, Address at Alaska Bar Association Ninth Annual Alaska Native Law Conference (Oct. 16, 1996).
• The Nuts and Bolts of Commercial Litigation, Address at Seattle Executives Association Luncheon (Feb. 12, 1994).
• What Makes a Legal Matter Newsworthy? (How to Handle Your Case Without Prejudice to Your Client), Address at the Washington State Bar Association’s Road Map to Better Understanding Bench/Bar Press Conference (Nov. 19, 1993).
• Lender Liability: Closing Argument from a Hypothetical Case, Address at the Sixth Annual Pacific Northwest Bankruptcy and Credit Seminar (May 19, 1990).
• When the Going Gets Rough, Address at the Alexander Hutton, Inc. Smart Borrower Seminar (Dec. 9, 1987).

Mark Mills is a Director with Betts Patterson Mines P.S. where he practices in the Insurance Coverage Practice Group. Practicing for over 30 years, he has advised insurers on coverage issues involving commercial general liability, commercial property, inland marine, commercial auto, homeowners, and personal auto policies. He has tried multiple cases to verdict in both coverage and defense contexts. He now advises insurers on coverage questions and represents them in related litigation under commercial general liability and related coverages, such as director and officer, employment practices, and management protection.

Mark represents insurers on claims involving:

• Construction defects,
• Intellectual property disputes,
• Additional insured issues,
• Product withdrawals, and
• Related duties to defend and indemnify against litigation or claims made under commercial liability policies.

Representative Cases

• Obtained summary judgment that insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify under Washington law against construction defect allegations. Also obtained summary judgment dismissal of Washington State Insurance Fair Claims Act (IFCA) cause of action when insurer client denied duty to defend outright without defending insured under a reservation of rights or filing a declaratory judgment action. Chase Constr. N.W. Inc. v. AIX Specialty Ins. Co., No. C15-19, 2015 WL 12001272 (W.D. Wash. June 23, 2015).
• Drafted coverage analysis and letter denying coverage for claim that client’s Commercial General Liability policy covered the insured contractor’s liability for “get to” or “tear out” costs. This resulted in the client saving a six-figure sum for defense and indemnity expenses.
• Montana insured was sued for infringing on plaintiff’s intellectual property rights. Drafted coverage analysis and letter denying defense and indemnity that resulted in insured dropping bad faith claims against client.
• Advised Commercial General Liability insurers on segregating covered damages from excluded ones, making the correct indemnity payments, and avoiding extra-contractual liability in two cases (Oregon and Washington) in which arbitrators made large lump sum construction defect awards without supporting detail.
• Represented a surplus lines Commercial General Liability insurer. Following an audit, the insured contractor sued for a refund of its premium and named our client (the surplus lines insurer), the surplus lines broker, and producing broker. The insured also alleged failure to comply with Washington’s surplus lines statutes, Consumer Protection Act violations, and professional negligence. The suit was dismissed, and our client paid nothing.
• Advised a Commercial General Liability carrier of an insured subcontractor, which was a defendant in a Washington state condominium construction defect suit in which the owners’ association alleged $15 million to repair the complex, and the insured’s portion was $335,000. Our client and four other carriers were defending the insured under a reservation of rights. The insured’s liability was settled for $7,500, and our client’s share was $1,750.
• Advised the Commercial General Liability carrier of a large commercial potato grower and a potato growers’ association. The insureds were defendants in price fixing federal suits in California and Idaho. Our unchallenged coverage denial saved our client tens of thousands of dollars in defense costs.
• Advised a condominium developer’s Commercial General Liability carrier. The condominium developer was a defendant in a Washington state construction defect suit. Our unchallenged denial of the duty to defend or indemnify under the sold or alienated premises exclusion saved the client hundreds of thousands of dollars in defense costs and indemnity payments.
• Advised the Commercial General Liability insurer of a Montana plant nursery. The insured nursery was a defendant in a federal patent infringement suit set in a Missouri federal court. Our unchallenged denial of the duty to defend or indemnify saved the client tens of thousands of dollars in defense expenses and indemnity proceeds.
• Advised the inland marine insurer of a Montana contractor. The contractor sought coverage for defective construction of part of a project to build a cell phone tower. Advised carrier to indemnify saving client from extra-contractual exposure and associated expenses for incorrect denial of a claim involving esoteric coverage issues.

Prior to relocating to Seattle, WA., Drew was a partner at a Cleveland, Ohio law firm, Miller Goler, where he practiced primarily complex commercial litigation. He also served as Lead Counsel for the City of Cleveland, Ohio’s Labor and Employment practice section prior to relocating.

His career highlights include having twice in his career being retained as special counsel by the state of Ohio’s Attorney General’s office to defend the state in class actions. He defended the state of Ohio in the largest class action ever prosecuted in the history of the state related to the state’s Bureau of Workers’ Compensation’s group employer premium rating system. Earlier in his career, he defended the state as special counsel in all litigation, including a class action, arising from a riot in 1993 at the state’s maximum-security prison in Lucasville, Ohio.

Over the course of his career, Drew has tried over 50 cases before a jury and, including bench trials and hearings before neutrals, he has conducted over 150 full evidentiary hearings.

Drew enjoys in his free time pursuing his lifelong devotion to classic literature and theatre and is a Shakespeare fanatic. Recreationally he is a passionate runner. Most importantly, he tries to make a difference in the lives of others.

Appellate Cases

• Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment that client had no duty to defend or indemnify insured contractor for its work on condominium buildings when policy excluded liability arising from the insured’s work in connection with any condominium. Chase Constr. N.W., Inc. v. AIX Specialty Ins. Co., No. 15-35591, 2018 WL 832467 (9^th Cir. February 13, 2018)
• Represented defendant who successfully argued on appeal that he did not make an alternative service arrangement with plaintiff’s process server. Gross v. Sunding, 139 Wn.App. 54, 161 P.3d 380 (2007)
• Represented subcontractor in case clarifying spoliation under Washington law.  Homeworks Construction, Inc. v. Wells, 133 Wn App. 892, 138 P.3d 654 (2006)
• Represented defendant in case clarifying witness disclosure requirements under state and local discovery rules. Lancaster v. Perry, 127 Wn.App. 826, 113 P.3d 1 (2005)
• Successfully defended marine insurance broker against errors and omissions suit for failing to procure war risks coverage where the causes of the vessel’s loss – Russian authorities’ seizure of vessel or Russian court’s transfer of vessel’s title – would not have been covered under war risks endorsement.  International Ultimate, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 122 Wn App. 736, 87 P.3d 774, review denied, 153 Wn. 2d 1016, 101 P.3d 109 (2004).
• Represented first party auto insurer of classic British automobile in successful appeal where Washington’s Court of Appeals held that client was prejudiced as a matter of law when insured failed to produce material financial documents after a fire destroyed the vehicle. Keith v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 105 Wn.App. 251, 19 P.3d 443 (2001)
• Represented first party property insurer which prevailed on appeal where Washington’s Court of Appeals held that the client was prejudiced as a matter of law by insured’s failure to produce material financial information when client suspected insured of overstating loss.  Herman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, 104 Wn App. 783, 17 P.3d 631 (2001)
• Successful appeal by client – first party property insurer – in case where Washington’s Supreme Court held that insured lacks insurable interest when he conveys property before loss even if he intends to re-purchase the property. Gossett v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, 133 Wn.2d 954, 948 P.2d 1264 (1997)
• Represented first party property insurer filing amicus brief in case where Washington Supreme Court held that insured must replace property before claiming replacement cost proceeds.  Hess v. North Pacific Insurance Co., 122 Wn.2d 180, 859 P.2d 586 (1993)

Publications & Presentations

• Co-Author (along with Martetta Thompson of Berkley Select, A Berkley Co.) Beyond the Template:  Write an Effective Reservation of Rights Now and Avoid Trouble Later , CLM Magazine, July 2019.
• Author, Hazy Coverage:  Analyzing the Duty to Defend Newly Insured Marijuana Businesses under Standard CGL Provisions, CLM Magazine, March 2018.
• Co-author (along with Daniel L. Syhre and Kathryn N. Boling), “Get To” Costs Correctly Understood, In-House Defense Quarterly, 56 – 60 (Spring 2016).
• Presenter/Panelist, Defending Under Reservations of Rights in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington: Pitfalls to Avoid for Insurers and Defense Attorneys, Claims and Litigation Management Alliance (CLM) Pacific Northwest Regional Conference, (March 10, 2016).
• Presenter, Insurance 411: What Every New Lawyer Must Know, Young Lawyers Division of the King County Bar Association, (April 16, 2015).
• Presenter, Construction Defect Disputes & Litigation: Using Coverage, Case Law and Indemnification to Shift Liability, NBI, (December 8, 2014).
• Presenter, Subrogation: Medicare, ERISA, Auto and Workers’ Compensation Challenges, NBI, (June 26, 2013).
• Author, Finding and Construing Policy Language, Washington Motor Vehicle Accident Insurance Deskbook, Chapter Supplement, Washington State Bar Association, (2009 Supplement).
• Mark has given in-house presentations on insurance related topics to carriers and the local CPCU organization.

Tony Kirkwood is a Director in BPM’s Seattle office. His practice focuses on a wide range of matters, including first party commercial property claims, personal injury suits, employment disputes, professional liability disputes, and non-solicitation, non-compete, and trade secret disputes.

Mr. Kirkwood’s experience includes the representation of both defendants and plaintiffs, and his work has led to take-nothing judgments for his clients, on the one-hand, and the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of clients, on the other. His practice has also been diverse in that, in addition to his admissions to practice law in all state and federal district courts in Washington and Texas, he has represented clients in state and federal courts throughout the United States, including Washington, Missouri, New York, Michigan, Nevada, Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arizona, and Oklahoma.

Mr. Kirkwood graduated with honors, Order of the Coif, from the University of Texas School of Law in 2001. Prior to that, he served in the United States Navy from 1986-1992 and served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He has also given seminars and taught classes relating to a variety of topics, including discovery, the practice of law, and the importance of communication between attorneys and staff and the responsibilities of both parties in that regard.

When not working, Mr. Kirkwood enjoys spending time with his family and friends, most of which is consumed by his children, reading, beaches, swimming, sports, and a good beer.

Michael A. Incorvaia is an attorney at Betts, Patterson & Mines in the firm’s Seattle office. His practice focuses on Business and Corporate Law, with a particular emphasis on advising Family-Owned and Closely-Held Businesses.

Before joining Betts, Patterson & Mines, Michael practiced at a large national insurance defense firm, where he gained litigation experience handling matters involving personal injury, construction defects, product liability, and consumer protection. Michael brings real-world insight to his legal practice, having worked at companies ranging from startups to global enterprises prior to attending law school.

Michael earned his B.A. in Business Administration and Management Operations from Washington State University and his J.D. from the University of Seattle School of Law. While in law school, Michael was active in alternative dispute resolution competitions and contributed to legal scholarship as a published author with the Seattle Journal of Environmental and Technology Law.