Court of Appeals weighs challenge to $10 million settlement in Renteria v. King

The Court of Appeals, Division II, heard oral argument on April 29, 2026, in a motion for discretionary review of a $10,000,000 covenant-judgment settlement in Reuben Renteria v. Michelle King (case no. 62047-2).

Attorney Matthew Munson, appearing for Associated Industries Insurance Company, argued the superior court abused its discretion by approving the settlement without an adequate record showing reasonableness under the applicable multi-factor test. Munson told the court that the settling parties submitted only a “very cursory brief,” provided unauthenticated medical bills and documents, and offered no sworn declarations from lay or expert witnesses to explain or support the $10,000,000 valuation. "They submitted a very cursory brief … and there's no explanation for how any of that adds up to $10,000,000," Munson said.

Munson pressed that the proof on liability was weak. He said the only eyewitness testimony in the record comes from James Hunter and that Hunter’s statements do not show a server actually served the driver, nor do they identify who served. Munson noted there was no testimony placing co-defendant Maria Andre at the bar the night of the incident and said records submitted to the court suggest she may not have been present. He argued those gaps undercut a dram-shop theory of liability and warranted reversal or a substantial reduction of the settlement amount.

Opposing counsel for the settling parties (voice in the record, not identified by name) defended the superior court’s reasonableness finding. That counsel said the record included extensive documentation — a color video of the collision, police reports, a DRE/toxicology investigation, hospital and ER bills approaching $1,000,000, and a claimed lost-wage figure the counsel described as about $2.5 million — and that the plaintiff now requires permanent care. The counsel argued some materials (including expert work on cell-phone geolocation) were developed with input from insurers and that judge below had discretion to weigh those materials in assessing reasonableness.

The panel questioned both sides about evidentiary boundaries at a reasonableness hearing and whether ordinary eyewitness observation can suffice to establish apparent intoxication. Munson challenged the sufficiency and authenticity of some materials and stressed the short record on several of the nine factors used to evaluate covenant-judgment settlements. The opposing counsel said negotiation history and the scale of the plaintiff’s medical needs explained the settlement figure and disputed suggestions of collusion.

The court asked several procedural questions, including whether parallel superior court or federal proceedings remained pending; counsel confirmed the Clark County civil action and a separate federal declaratory-judgment action in the Western District of Washington remain unresolved. The court also inquired whether a transcript of the superior-court reasonableness hearing had been filed; counsel said no.

After oral argument, the presiding commissioner said the court would take the motion under advisement and issue a written ruling. "This is a motion for discretionary review. I'm going to take this matter under consideration and issue a written ruling on it," the commissioner stated. The division recessed to its next calendar item.

The court’s written opinion will determine whether the superior court properly applied the statutory and case-law standards governing covenant-judgment reasonableness and whether the evidentiary record supported approval of the $10,000,000 settlement. No further action was taken in court on April 29; the matter remains under consideration.