A Seattle native, Mike Ricketts received his undergraduate degree from Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington, and his juris doctor from the University of Washington School of Law. He focuses his practice on civil trial work including property and casualty insurance disputes and other commercial matters, and asbestos and other personal injury and product liability litigation.
He has considerable experience with fire claims and property losses involving product failure, electrical malfunction, or construction issues. He also devotes a substantial portion of his practice to appeals.
Mike is the father of three adult children and enjoys reading Pacific Northwest and American history. He is also an experienced umpire who officiates youth, high school, and adult baseball games, so it’s probably not a good idea to argue with him.
American Bar Association
Washington State Bar Association
King County Bar Association
The Defense Research Institute
American Board of Trial Advocates
Federal Bar Association of the Western District of Washington
Washington Defense Trial Lawyers Association
When disaster struck at a public utility district’s hydro-electric generation facility, the district’s London-based Difference in Conditions insurers and their national counsel turned to us for help with the coverage, damage, and priority issues that arose when claims for the loss were made under both DIC coverage and all-risk property insurance coverage. We helped shepherd the matter through declaratory judgment litigation in federal court in the Western District of Washington, a multi-week formal appraisal hearing, and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, resulting in a complete vindication of our clients’ coverage positions.
A national industrial insurer provided umbrella liability coverage to a local solvents processor who was liable for pollution claims under the Model Toxic Controls Act. Near the end of a long and complicated course of claims, litigation, remediation, and other activity, the umbrella insurer was faced with competing claimants to its near-exhausted coverage limits, as well as allegations of extra-contractual liability from several competing insureds and purported insureds. The umbrella insurer turned to us for assistance, which took the form of immediately filing an interpleader and declaratory judgment action in federal court to resolve the competing claims to coverage and to head off further allegations of wrongdoing. With that in place, we then were able to resolve the remaining claims in a comprehensive mediation ordered by the court.
An employee of a local construction company drove a company truck to various job sites, and also to and from home each day. The employee took the truck to his church’s camp one summer, and while there allowed another person at camp to drive the truck. When that driver hit a young boy, the family of the boy, the personal insurer of the driver, and the personal insurer of the employee all looked to our client, the liability insurer of the construction company that owned the truck, to provide primary coverage. We were able to obtain a ruling that, regardless of the employee having granted permission to the driver, our client owed no coverage under the terms of its policy because its insured, the construction company itself, had not expressly or impliedly given permission to the driver to drive the truck.