BSCR Firm News/Blogs Feed

Baker Sterchi Welcomes 2025 Portland Summer Law Clerk

08 Jul 2025

Baker Sterchi is pleased to welcome Allisandra Kuni as a 2025 summer law clerk in the firm’s Portland office.

Kuni is a rising 3L at Gonzaga University School of Law, where she serves as co-president of the Women’s Law Caucus. She previously volunteered with the law school’s Moderate Means Program and worked as a law clerk at a Spokane-based defense firm during her 2L year. Kuni is also a licensed participant in the Washington State Bar Association’s Rule 9 Law Clerk Program. She earned her undergraduate degree in political science and global affairs, with a minor in Spanish, from the University of Portland.

Baker Sterchi's summer law clerks attend hearings and depositions, contribute to blog posts and assist with a variety of research projects. They also have the opportunity to participate in social activities.

David Vaughn Article on Changing Associate Expectations Published in DRI's The Brief Case

08 Jul 2025

Baker Sterchi attorney David Vaughn’s article, “From Seinfeld to Streaming: Helping Today’s Associates Find Their Why and Thrive,” appears in the July/August edition of DRI’s The Brief Case. The article offers guidance on how law firms can evolve to better support young attorneys as they define their purpose and professional direction.

Vaughn defends physicians, hospitals and other medical professionals in medical malpractice and personal injury matters. He serves on DRI’s Membership Committee and is second vice chair of the Young Lawyers Committee. He earned his law degree from Washington University School of Law and is admitted to practice in Missouri and Illinois.

DRI is an international organization dedicated to providing resources, education and networking for defense attorneys and in-house counsel. The Brief Case features content from DRI's substantive law committees and provides members with targeted insights for specific practice areas.

Meghan Kane Re-Elected to Illinois Defense Counsel's Board of Directors

07 Jul 2025

Baker Sterchi Member Meghan Kane has been re-elected to the Illinois Defense Counsel (IDC) Board of Directors through June 2028. Her re-election was confirmed at the organization’s annual meeting on June 20.

Kane focuses her civil defense practice on complex business litigation matters, including product liability, premises liability and toxic torts. She serves as national asbestos and toxic tort counsel for a leading provider of merchandise displays, refrigeration systems and installation services to food retailers. Her experience also includes defending personal injury claims involving auto and construction accidents, slip-and-fall incidents and Dram Shop cases, as well as representing municipalities and individual officers in civil matters.

Kane serves as vice chair of the IDC’s Tort Law Committee and co-chairs Baker Sterchi’s Toxic Tort Practice Group. She earned her law degree from Saint Louis University School of Law and is admitted to practice in Illinois and Missouri.

Organized in 1964, the IDC is a statewide organization of civil defense attorneys focused on supporting the defense bar and improving the civil justice system in Illinois.

Summary Judgment Obtained for Defendant Livestock Building Supplier in Wrongful Death Suit

07 Jul 2025

Baker Sterchi secured summary judgment for a regional supplier of livestock buildings in a wrongful death case filed in Harrison County Circuit Court in Missouri.

The lawsuit stemmed from a fatal fire at a hog barn following a propane leak. The plaintiff alleged negligent design and reconstruction of the barn and claimed the fire resulted from improper servicing and testing of the propane system. Our client, one of five defendants, was accused of contributing to the incident through its work on the facility.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of our client, finding that under the Missouri Acceptance Doctrine, the work had been accepted by the property owner and no exceptions applied. All claims were dismissed, and court costs were awarded to our client.

Guardianship Preserved in Pro Bono Matter

03 Jul 2025

Baker Sterchi attorneys successfully resolved a guardianship matter referred through the Legal Aid of Western Missouri Volunteer Attorney Project. The client, a paternal grandmother, had served as guardian of the minor child since shortly after his birth. In recent years, several maternal relatives filed actions seeking to terminate the guardianship. The firm’s attorneys represented the client through multiple proceedings, ultimately securing a resolution that preserves her role as guardian.

Insurance Shake-Up: Eighth Circuit Upholds Limitations on Policy Coverage for "Additional Named Insured" Parties

03 Jul 2025

ABSTRACT: The Court of Appeals affirms Missouri federal court opinion limiting the scope of coverage for “Additional Named Insured,” holding they cannot recover lost rental income and “soft costs” under the policy.

On June 9, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, holding that “Additional Named Insured[s]” under an insurance policy were not covered for lost rental income, and “soft costs” (indirect expenses not directly related to the physical construction process).

BCC Partners, LLC contracted with Ben F. Blanton Construction, Inc. to build an apartment complex in Creve Coeur, Missouri. The contract required the general contractor to obtain insurance. Blanton subsequently purchased an insurance policy. The policy listed Blanton as the “Named Insured” and BCC as an “Additional Named Insured.”

In the ensuing months, a key retaining wall failed during construction causing damage and delay to the project. Multiple insurance claims were filed with the insurer, which paid $1.3 million out to an escrow account and was divided between the recipients. The following year, BCC filed another claim with the insurer under the same original policy for damages of alleged loss of rental income and “soft costs” resulting from the failed retaining wall and claimed to be covered as an “Additional Named Insured” in the policy. The insurer investigated the claim and denied BCC coverage as an “Additional Named Insured” and reserved the right to recover the initial advancement.

BCC sued the insurer for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay under Missouri law. Both parties filed summary judgment motions. The district court found in favor of the insurer on both claims, stating that as a matter of law, BCC was not entitled to the payments under the terms of the policy. BCC timely appealed.

On appeal the court addressed the breach of contract claim. The policy stated that coverage extends to “the actual loss of rental value ‘you’ sustain” and “‘your’ soft costs” that result from certain construction delay. The court ruled that although BCC argued that the terms “you” and “your” applied to “Additional Named Insured,” under the Common Policy Declaration of the policy those terms only refer to “Named Insured” which was Blanton, not BCC.

BCC argued that the language of the policy was ambiguous and that under Missouri law, “If language in an insurance policy is ambiguous, the court resolves the ambiguity against the insurer-drafter.” The court rejected this argument, holding that the plain language of the policy did not conform to BCC’s preferred reading, nor was it ambiguous. The court pointed out that under BCC’s interpretation of the policy, there would be no difference between “Named Insured” and “Additional Named Insured”— an interpretation it deemed implausible.

According to the court of appeals, under the clear and unambiguous policy language, BCC was an “Additional Named Insured,” which is distinct from a “Named Insured.” An “Additional Named Insured” is not covered for lost rental value and soft costs. Accordingly, the policy did not cover BCC for rental income lost and soft costs incurred following the construction delays at the Vue Project. Thus, the insurer did not breach the policy by declining to make the $1.4 million payment to BCC.

Practical Considerations:

When an insurance policy is ambiguous, Missouri courts will resolve the ambiguity against the insurance drafter. But when the plain meaning of policy language is clear and unambiguous, the policy must be enforced as written. Here, the court of appeals had little trouble concluding that under the plain meaning of the policy an “Additional Named Insured” is not covered for the same type of damages as the “Named Insured.” This case should provide useful precedent for the interpretation of insurance policies that cover and distinguish between named insured and additional named insured parties.

Amy Nevad Promoted to Director of Office Operations

02 Jul 2025

Baker Sterchi is pleased to announce the promotion of Amy Nevad to Director of Office Operations. She brings 16 years of operations experience, including the past five years guiding the firm’s St. Louis and Belleville offices.

In her expanded role, Nevad is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the firm’s branch offices in St. Louis, Belleville, Edwardsville, Seattle and Portland. Her responsibilities include supervising staff, implementing firm policies and procedures, and ensuring each office meets the needs of employees, clients and stakeholders. She is also involved in strategic planning, budgeting, facility management and project management.

Nevad serves on the firm’s Attorney Training and Development Committee and is secretary of the Association of Legal Administrators’ Gateway Chapter Executive Board.

Charniece Rollie Promoted to Director of Administration

01 Jul 2025

Baker Sterchi is pleased to announce the recent promotion of Charniece Rollie to Director of Administration. With 25 years of experience in the legal industry, including the past 10 at the firm, Rollie brings strong institutional knowledge and leadership to the role.

As Director of Administration, she oversees firmwide operations in several key areas, including conflicts and resolution, records management, facilities, reception and office services in the firm’s Kansas City office.

She holds a Certificate of Mastery in Inclusive Leadership from Authentico and the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce. She serves on the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committees for both Baker Sterchi and ALFA International, a global network of independent law firms of which the firm’s Kansas City and Overland Park offices are members. Rollie is also a past president of the National Association for Legal Support Professionals of Missouri.

Courtney Ragland Joins Baker Sterchi in Belleville

30 Jun 2025

Courtney Ragland joins Baker Sterchi as an associate in the firm’s Belleville office. Her practice focuses on defending premises liability, products liability and personal injury matters on behalf of Illinois municipalities, as well as individual and corporate clients.

Ragland earned her law degree from Southern Illinois University School of Law and holds an undergraduate degree from Webster University. She is admitted to practice in Illinois and Colorado.

Washington makes it easier for employees to sue their employers for toxic exposure

27 Jun 2025

ABSTRACT: The Washington Supreme Court has made it easier for employees to sue their employers for exposure causing latent diseases like asbestosis, notwithstanding that employers are generally immune from tort suits by their employees under Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act.

On May 29, 2025, the Washington Supreme Court in Cockrum v. C.H. Murphy/Clark-Ullman Inc. made it easier for employees to sue their employers under an exception to the Washington Industrial Insurance Act (IIA), which generally holds an employer immune from personal injury lawsuits by its employees as part of the state workers’ comp. insurance framework. Overruling prior precedent, the Washington Supreme Court recently held that in “latent disease” cases like asbestos exposure causing illness many years later, employees can recover in a personal injury lawsuit if they show that their employer had actual knowledge that they were exposed at work to a toxin or substance “virtually certain” to cause a disease.

Under the IIA, employers are immune from injury suits by their employees. Employer negligence is not enough to sue, because the enactment of workers’ compensation more than a century ago rested on an agreement that in exchange for certainty of compensation for injured workers (and employers paying into the industrial insurance fund) employers would not be sued for accidents on the job. There is a narrow exception, however, where an injury resulted from the employer’s “deliberate intention to produce such an injury.” To show deliberate intention, a long line of Washington cases held that employees must make a two prong showing: 1) that the employer had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur; and 2) willfully disregarded that knowledge.

This led to relatively harsh results in cases alleging that an employee contracted a “latent disease” because he or she was exposed to toxic material like asbestos by the employer, and later developed a disease like mesothelioma. For asbestos (and any carcinogen) it is impossible to ever know with absolute certainty that any individual person exposed to a carcinogen will develop cancer. Thus, in 2014, the Washington Supreme Court in Walston v. Boeing Co. held that Boeing, the employer, was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff employee could not demonstrate that Boeing had actual knowledge he was certain to develop mesothelioma.

In Cockrum, the Court granted review of a case that turned on virtually identical facts to Walston, in which the plaintiff was repeatedly exposed to asbestos without protective equipment, and the evidence showed that the employer was aware asbestos could cause a “latent disease” like cancer many years after exposure. Rather than distinguishing the facts in Walston, the Supreme Court took the somewhat rare step of overturning its prior precedent and creating a new test specific to such “latent disease” cases, holding that virtual certainty, rather than absolute certainty, is enough to show deliberate intent. Thus, when an employee alleges that toxic exposure caused a latent disease (including but not limited to cancer), the employee must show that the employer had actual knowledge that an injury was virtually certain to occur, and willfully disregarded that knowledge.

The Court also provided future guidance for courts and litigants by describing four non-exclusive factors that can show “virtual certainty.” These are 1) the employer’s knowledge of ongoing, repeated development of symptoms of latent diseases over time, 2) the employer’s knowledge that other employees similar to the plaintiff developed symptoms, 3) whether those symptoms developed prior to the plaintiff employee being exposed to the toxin, and 4) “whether the exposure arises from a common major cause within the employer’s control.” Stated simply, the first factor asks whether the employer generally knows a substance causes a disease, while the second and third factors ask whether the employer knew that some of its other employees have gotten disease symptoms before the plaintiff got exposed to the toxin. The fourth factor is about whether the exposure was something the employer could control.

The Court justified its decision in Cockrum to overturn prior precedent by looking to the IIA itself. The IIA expressly includes disease in the range of injuries for which an employee may be compensated. Moreover, the word “certainty” does not appear in the text of the IIA statute enacted by Washington’s legislature, but rather in judicial decisions intended to give substance to the legislature’s “deliberate intention” to cause injury exception. In latent disease cases, however, the “certainty” requirement effectively made it impossible for any plaintiff to bring a lawsuit, which is contrary to the legislature’s intent to allow plaintiffs to recover when their employer injures them through causing them to develop a disease. Since the Walston decision was contrary to legislative intent, the Court reasoned it should be overturned.

In dissent, Justice Madsen (joined by Justice Johnson) argued that the “certainty” rule had been in place for more than a hundred years since early decisions interpreting the IIA. In that entire time, the legislature had not seen fit to carve out a special, more lenient rule for latent diseases as opposed to other kinds of injuries. By altering longstanding precedent, Justice Madsen said that the majority was making policy decisions best left to the legislature.

Ultimately, this decision will require lower courts to grapple with what “virtual certainty” means in latent disease cases. While the Court was careful to note that a plaintiff would still have to show that the employer willfully disregarded a known risk, employers are likely to face more lawsuits by plaintiffs alleging latent diseases caused by toxic exposure. Lower courts will have to police the boundaries of this new standard, and may consider other factors besides the four “virtual certainty” factors above.