Pursuant to RCW 4.20.020, two “tiers” of beneficiaries are established in a wrongful death suit. The first includes the descendant’s “wife, husband, child or children”. If there are no first tier beneficiaries, the action may be “maintained for the benefit of the parents, sisters, or brothers, who may be dependant upon the deceased person for support”.

Prior to this most recent decision, Washington courts have required that to show “dependence”, required more than “emotional support”, but usually required some financial, monetary contribution by the adult to the parents or other beneficiaries. See Philippides v. Bernard, 151 W.2d 376 (2004).

However, in Armantrout the court expanded or, at the minimum, clarified the “support” required to be proven in order to qualify for the right to bring a wrongful death action. At the time of her death, Kristen Armantrout was 18 and living at home with her mother. She died, arguably due to medical malpractice at the hands of the defendant. Kristen’s mother had diabetes and was blind. Kristen provided her mother with a variety of services, acting as her mother’s driver and reader, and also helped her mother with medical needs such as glucose readings and insulin injections. At trial, testimony showed the value of those services was around $36,000 per year. Kristen also contributed her own $588 monthly disability benefits check to the household expenses.

At trial, the jury found that the Armantrout’s were substantially financially dependant on Kristen for support, and awarded them $1.15 million dollars.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court’s instruction allowed the jury to improperly value services, as opposed to actual financial contributions for support.

The Washington Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the jury’s verdict. In so doing, it held that RCW 4.20.020 was not limited purely to monetary contributions, but allowed substantial support through services, not ordinarily given by a child to their parents, to be considered by the jury to determine whether parents were “financially dependant” upon their children.

The Court reiterated that emotional dependency is not sufficient under the statute to show support, and also that dependency could not be established based upon those normal services that a child might provide for their elderly parents.

However, this will almost always create a factual question in these cases, requiring the jury to determine whether an adult child’s “services” are sufficient enough to create “dependency”. For example, if an adult child goes to his elderly parent’s home and mows the lawn once a week every summer, is that “financial dependency”? Many adult children help their elderly parents with transportation needs, or with financial matters such as balancing the checkbook. Are these services enough to create “financial dependency”?

The Armantrout v. Carlson decision will probably increase the number of claims brought by adults or siblings for “dependency” upon adult children who are tragically killed due to the negligence of another. In most cases, it will probably be a question of fact, not resolvable by summary judgment, as to the level of “financial dependency”.

Remember, the establishment of financial dependency is only to qualify the second tier beneficiaries to have a right for wrongful death. After they “qualify”, they are entitled to all those wrongful death damages as would a first tier beneficiary. In other words, they can recover more than the value of the financial services lost, but also those for the loss of their relationship with the adult child. In other words, the elderly parents of Kristen Armantrout lost the value of approximately $36,000 per year, but received a much larger jury verdict of $1.15 million dollars, representing all their damages.