breach of fiduciary duty claim in Washington

2006Nat’l Bank, 99 Wn.2d 394, 403 , 663 P.2d 104 (1983). ¶17 To prevail on a breach of fiduciary duty claim, the worker must show that the Department formulated its interpretation of RCW 51.08.178 without using the judgment and care those persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs.

2006Nat’l Bank, 99 Wn.2d 394, 403 , 663 P.2d 104 (1983). ¶17 To prevail on a breach of fiduciary duty claim, the worker must show that the Department formulated its interpretation of RCW 51.08.178 without using the judgment and care those persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs.

2000App. 408, 414 , 875 P.2d 637 (1994) (elements of a breach of fiduciary duty claim).

2000Senn v. Northwest Underwriters, Inc., 74 Wash.App. 408, 414 , 875 P.2d 637 (1994) (elements of a breach of fiduciary duty claim).

2024See Piris v. Kitching, 185 Wn.2d 856, 861 , 375 P.3d 627 (2016) (legal malpractice); Micro Enhancement Int’l, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 110 Wn.

2021Micro Enhancement Int’l, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 110 Wn.

2025Id.

2018Id. at 855-56 .

2017RCW 4.16.080(3); Hudson v. Condon, 101 Wn.

2016RCW 4.16.080(3); Hudson v. Condon. 101 Wn.

2026To prevail on a breach of fiduciary duty claim, the plaintiff must show “(1) the existence of a duty; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a resulting injury; and (4) that the claimed breach was the proximate cause of the injury.” Miller v. U.S. Bank of Wash., N.A., 72 Wn.

2026App. 416, 426 , 865 P.2d 536 (1994).

2023Corp. v. DeHart, 13 Wn.

2023Fortin contends that damages are a necessary element of Herdson’s minority shareholder oppression claim because they are a necessary element of a breach of fiduciary duty claim.10 In reply, Fortin concedes that proving damages is not necessary in all minority shareholder oppression claims, but asserts that, in this 9 “Under the ‘business judgment rule,’ corporate management is immunized from liability in a corporate transaction where (1) the decision to undertake the transaction is within the power of the corporation and the authority of management, and (2) there is a reasonable basis to indic

2020Accordingly, “our review is de novo, but we defer to the trial court’s factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence.” In re Estate of Cordero, 127 Wn.

2018Id. at 457 ; see also 14 As a preliminary matter, Leslie and Tammy claim the trial court erred by limiting the breach of fiduciary duty claim to Turner's failure to file the Neir declaration.

2016It pointed out that the fiduciary duty claims were "independently and separately assertable" had there been no agreement, there was no contract term that created an obligation upon which the plaintiff could base a breach of fiduciary duty claim, and the fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff rested on an independent set of rights provided for in the Delaware general corporation law. 817 A.2d at 157-58 .

2015App. 866, 872-73 , 6 P.3d 615 (2000) (holding that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is subject to the three-year tort statute of limitations).

2013Humphrey relies in part on the fiduciary duty owed amon g partners in a partnership, Br. of Appellant at 43 (citing Green v. McAllister, 103 Wn.

2006Lynn v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 130 Wn.

2001We found the controlling precepts in our prior decision in this case: 47 An employee may recover for a breach of fiduciary duty if he or she proves that an employer, acting as a fiduciary, made a material misrepresentation that would confuse a reasonable beneficiary about his or her benefits, and the beneficiary acted thereupon to his or her detriment. 48 Id. at 492 , citing Unisys II, 57 F.3d at 1264 . 49 Given these elements of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty in this context, it necessarily follows that any breach that may have occurred was completed, and a claim based thereon accrued,

2001Pa.). 4 At the same time, the Court stressed that the breach of fiduciary duty claim was not before it and that it was "not holding that a breach did in fact occur." Id. at *27 . 5 Notwithstanding plaintiffs' argument to the contrary, we do not regard the fact that the alleged misrepresentations were repeated (as opposed to isolated) as satisfying the requirement that there be affirmative steps to conceal beyond the misrepresentations themselves. 6 In particular, plaintiffs point to this Court's decision in Adams v. Freedom Forge Corp., 204 F.3d 475 (3d Cir. 2000).

2001Even though the retirees concede that the termination of the old plans was a non-fiduciary act, they nevertheless insist that a non-fiduciary act can constitute "part of the breach or violation" of fiduciary duty if it is the final act that gives rise to a cause of action. 46 In Adams v. Freedom Forge Corp., 204 F.3d 475 (3d Cir. 2000), this Court recently reviewed the elements of a breach of fiduciary duty claim like that of the plaintiffs here.