## Facts

- After a January 1980 automobile accident, Beverly D. Case sought chiropractic treatment from Dr. Dean R. Gerimonte.
- Early in treatment, Case was presented with a written assignment that (1) assigned her rights to insurance payment under a Farmers Insurance policy to Gerimonte and (2) stated Case would pay any amount Farmers did not pay.
- Case stated she objected to signing because she could not pay a shortfall if Farmers did not pay in full.
- Case asserted Gerimonte reassured her that if the insurer said it would take care of her, it would, told her not to worry, and insisted she sign; she signed.
- Case later signed similar assignment forms on additional dates during treatment.
- Farmers ultimately paid only part of the bill; Case did not pay the remainder.
- Gerimonte sued Case (and her husband) for the unpaid balance and attorney’s fees based on the assignments.
- Case raised undue influence as an affirmative defense, relying on the doctor–patient relationship and the circumstances of the signatures.

## Issues

1. Whether undue influence in contract formation requires proof that the influencer “overcame” or totally overbore the other party’s will.
2. Whether the evidence, viewed favorably to Case, created a genuine issue of material fact on undue influence that precluded summary judgment enforcing the assignments.
3. Whether the trial court erred by importing Case’s ultimate trial burden of proof into the summary judgment analysis rather than assuming her evidence true and drawing reasonable inferences in her favor.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One reversed the summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held that “overcoming a person’s will” is not an element of undue influence in entering a contract.
- The court held the record raised a triable fact issue on undue influence, given the doctor–patient relationship and Case’s account of reluctance, reassurances, and insistence.
- The court held the trial court misapplied summary judgment standards by evaluating whether Case’s evidence would ultimately satisfy her burden at trial, rather than determining whether a genuine issue of material fact existed.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, the court must assume the truth of the nonmoving party’s evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.
- A resisting party’s burden of proof at trial is not used to decide whether summary judgment should be granted.
- For contract formation, undue influence does not require proof that the affected party’s will was overborne; unfair persuasion within a relationship of justified trust or dominance may render an agreement voidable.
- An inference supporting undue influence may arise where the complaining party placed confidence in, and took advice from, the other party; a doctor–patient relationship may support such an inference depending on the facts.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed enforcement of the patient’s assignment agreements on summary judgment because the trial court applied an incorrect undue influence standard and failed to view the record in the light most favorable to the patient; the evidence permitted a factfinder to decide whether a trusted physician used unfair persuasion to obtain the assignments.


Gerimonte v. Case, 42 Wn. App. 611, 712 P.2d 876 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986)