FILED JANUARY 17, 2019 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE MARIYA TARASYUK, ) ) No. 35482-2-III Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) MUTUAL OF ENUMCLAW ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION INSURANCE COMPANY, and JOHN ) DOE, ) ) Respondents. ) FEARING, J. — After a bench trial, the trial court dismissed Mariya Tarasyuk’s suit for payment under a homeowners insurance policy for a fire loss to a shop on her home property. The trial court also dismissed Tarasyuk’s claims for bad faith, violation of the Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA), RCW 48.30.010-015, and violation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), chapter 19.86 RCW. We affirm based on the trial court’s findings of fact that support its conclusions of law. FACTS This appeal, more than most, is fact intensive. The trial court thoroughly reviewed the evidence and entered findings of fact based on the evidence. As an appellate court, No. 35482-2-III Tarasyuk v. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Co. our primary role is to assess if substantial evidence supports the critical findings of fact and if the findings support the conclusions of law, rather than thoroughly reviewing the entire trial court record. Nevertheless, because of the importance of the appeal to Mariya Tarasyuk, we have engaged in a thorough review of the record, including the trial transcript, published deposition transcripts, and trial exhibits. Our recitation of the lengthy facts and our analysis of extensive facts prolong this opinion. This civil suit arises from the procurement of a Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company homeowner’s insurance policy by plaintiff Mariya Tarasyuk for her West Richland property. The question presented to the trial court was whether the policy covered a fire at the shop on August 19, 2011, or whether a policy exclusion for property used in a business eliminated coverage for the fire. Plaintiff Mariya Tarasyuk and her partner Vladimir Pugachev immigrated from Ukraine. Since 2007, the couple has resided together with their three children in a West Richland home. The home property includes a large outbuilding, alternatively called a garage, shop, and shed. The real property also includes smaller outbuildings, including playhouses. Mariya Tarasyuk’s and Vladimir Pugachev’s residence sits on a large and open plot of land. The shed lies to the left of the house as one faces the front of the home. A short chain link fence surrounds a portion of the property in front of the shed. A car lift, a large oil tank and funnel, a gasoline barrel, blue oil containers, and other tools and 2 No. 35482-2-III Tarasyuk v. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Co. equipment sit inside the fence near the shop. A business sign attached to the fence and facing the road reads “M V Auto & Boat Repair.” Ex. P-5. M stands for Mariya, and V stands for Vladimir. The sign includes a phone number for the repair business. Several vehicles parked in various stages of repair ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals