Peter A. Danelo joined the firm in 1988. He has a general civil litigation practice, with a focus on class actions and complex breach-of-contract actions.  Mr. Danelo is the co-chair of Heller Ehrman’s Northwest Litigation Department, and was formerly the Chair of the Consumer Litigation Practice Group.

Experience

Mr. Danelo is an experienced trial attorney. He has been the lead attorney responsible for numerous class actions, contract disputes, construction cases, securities fraud actions, environmental suits, and bankruptcy-related litigation. In his 32 year career, he has spent approximately three and a half years in trial, including several arbitrations and jury and non-jury trials in federal and state courts. He represented the Bonneville Power Administration in one of the largest arbitrations ever conducted by the American Arbitration Association.

Mr. Danelo has spoken frequently at seminars on commercial litigation topics, including class actions, RICO claims, and the use of economic exports. He served on the King County Bar Association’s Judicial Screening Committee and the Federal Bar Association’s Continuing Legal Education Committee, and has been a faculty member of the National Institute for Trial Advocacy.  He co-authored Litigating in the New Class Action World: An Update on the Evolving Case Law Under the Class Action Fairness Act, BNA Class Action Litigation Report, Vol. 06, Number 18, September 23, 2005.

Representative Engagements

Significant Trials

• Bonneville Power Administration adv. Tenaska: Mr. Danelo represented the Bonneville Power Administration, a federal power marketing agency, in a breach-of-contract dispute with Tenaska, the developer of a 248-megawatt power generating facility. The matter was arbitrated before an AAA panel in Denver, with the hearing lasting over a year. The primary issues in the case were the amount of lost profits to be awarded to Tenaska and the amount owed to Tenaska for third-party obligations it had incurred. The matter included resolution of significant claims by the contractor (Kiewit/Black & Veatch) and the equipment supplier (General Electric) and extensive technical testimony about problems related to the facility’s turbine. Tenaska’s claim of $1,055,000,000 is one of the largest ever brought before the AAA. The arbitrators returned an award of less than one-fourth of the amount claimed.
• Skidmore Owings & Merrill v. Intrawest, et al.: Mr. Danelo defended Skidmore, one of the world’s largest architectural and engineering firms, against claims brought by the owner (Intrawest) and several contractors related to the construction of the Newmark Building, a high-rise structure in Seattle. The lawsuit led to a 13 week jury trial and an appeal to the Washington Court of Appeals. Intrawest and its contractors were ultimately awarded $1.8 million, approximately one-fourth of the amounts they had claimed. The case involved claims for architectural and engineering malpractice. Subsequently, the Newmark Building condominium owners filed similar claims against Skidmore. Mr. Danelo obtained a dismissal of those claims based on the claim preclusion effect of the prior lawsuit.
• Asarco adv. Louisiana-Pacific, et al.: Mr. Danelo defended Asarco against environmental contamination claims brought by Louisiana Pacific and other logyards in the Tacoma, Washington area. The claims arose out of the use of Asarco slag (a byproduct of the smelting process) as ballast on the logyards. The claims included nine state law causes of action (primarily products liability, but also Hazardous Waste Management Act and negligence) and a federal CERCLA claim. A four-month jury trial was followed by an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. With a few minor exceptions, the state claims were dismissed. We successfully argued that most of the state claims were preempted by the Washington Products Liability Act and that the products liability claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The logyards were awarded many of their environmental cleanup costs under CERCLA.
• Go2Net v. FreeYellow: This dispute arose out of Go2Net's acquisition of FreeYellow.com. Mr. Danelo represented Go2Net in an action seeking to rescind the transaction under the Washington Securities Act due to material representations and omissions by the seller and defendant in the action. The seller counterclaimed for damages in excess of $40 million. After a month-long trial, the jury sided completely with Go2Net, requiring that the transaction be rescinded and that the seller not receive any of the $40 million it sought. The jury verdict was affirmed by the Washington Supreme Court.
• Ebasco Services Incorporated/Boundary Dam Project:  Ebasco, a major New York architect/engineer and construction firm, was the general contractor on Seattle City Light’s Boundary Dam Hydroelectric project in northeastern Washington. Mr. Danelo represented Ebasco in six contractor lawsuits, seeking a total of several million dollars, and two wrongful death actions arising out of this project. A claim by Coastal Marine, the underwater excavation subcontractor on the project, led to a five-week jury trial. The case turned on whether the contract documents misled Coastal Marine about the nature of the underwater excavation work. The jury returned a verdict dismissing the subcontractor’s claim and awarding Ebasco all the damages it sought on its counterclaim.
• Four Seasons Hotels adv. Urban Partnership: Mr. Danelo represented Four Seasons in its arbitration with Urban Partnership concerning the ownership and management of the Four Seasons Olympic Hotel in Seattle. After a four-week hearing, and the completion of all testimony, the matter was submitted to the arbitration panel. The parties reached a confidential settlement before the panel rendered a decision.
• The Disposal Group v. City of Vancouver: Mr. Danelo brought suit on behalf of a garbage hauler against Vancouver, claiming that the hauler was entitled to compensation when the City terminated the hauler’s right to collect garbage in a portion of the City. The bankruptcy court, after finding that the right to collect garbage was a constitutionally-protected property right, held a two-week bench trial and awarded the hauler damages (lost profits for ten years) of $3 million.
• B99 Associates adv. FSLIC: FSLIC sought to obtain relief from the automatic stay in bankruptcy court to foreclose on a $10 million loan to B99 Associates, a shopping center developer represented by Mr. Danelo. After a two-week bench trial concerning the value of the shopping center, FSLIC’s motion was denied and B99 was able to fully reorganize under Chapter 11, ultimately paying all of its creditors and returning a substantial amount to its equity security holder.
• Centex Homes adv. Bay Cities Construction: Mr. Danelo defended Centex Homes, the owner of a large housing development, against a $1 million claim by its civil subcontractor. After a month-long AAA arbitration, the arbitrator dismissed the subcontractor’s claim and entered a judgment in favor of Centex on its counterclaim. The primary issue in the arbitration was whether differing site conditions justified an equitable adjustment to the contract price.
• In re Crescent Bar Litigation: Mr. Danelo defended the developer of the Crescent Bar resort against fraud and securities fraud claims by the subsequent purchaser of the project. A seven-week bench trial resulted in the dismissal of the fraud claims and a $4 million counterclaim judgment in his client’s favor. The favorable resolution of a difficult contract interpretation issue allowed the judgment to be collected in full from the purchaser’s guarantor. Mr. Danelo also represented the developer in a complex series of suits, including a class action, brought by the condominium unit owners alleging various construction defects. His client’s third-party claim against the architect resulted in his client avoiding any contribution to the eventual settlement.

Mr. Danelo was lead counsel in all of the above engagements with the exception of the Bonneville arbitration, in which he and two other Heller Ehrman partners led Bonneville’s defense, and the Four Seasons arbitration, in which he and another Heller Ehrman partner represented Four Seasons.

Class Action Experience

• State Farm Insurance Company Class Actions: Mr. Danelo has represented State Farm in seven consumer class actions brought on behalf of Washington residents who purchased State Farm insurance policies. In addition, he has defended State Farm in seven consumer class actions filed by Montana purchasers of State Farm auto policies and an Alaska class action concerning homeowners’ policies. He also represented State Farm in a nationwide class action regarding "diminished value" claims. Of these sixteen lawsuits, all claims against State Farm were dismissed in ten, five were settled, and one is pending.
• Identix Incorporated adv. Espinoza: This matter involved a nationwide class action in federal court in Oregon and a Section 17200 claim in state court in California. Plaintiffs alleged that their criminal records were mistakenly confused with those of convicted felons by Indentix's biometric identification machines. All the claims in the Oregon action were dismissed on summary judgment, after which plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the California suit.
• University of Washington Medical Center adv. Rothmeyer:  This class action challenged a hospital's method of charging for its medical services. It sought significant refunds for patients. The suit was settled without payment of any funds to the class.
• In-Wall Heater Litigation: This nationwide consumer class action arose out of a product recall campaign initiated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission against 1.8 million allegedly defective in-wall heaters. The class sought $310 million in damages from three distributors of the heaters. Mr. Danelo represented one of the three distributors. The matter was settled favorably.
• Goldendale Aluminum Co. adv. Johnson: This class action was filed by a beneficiary of a corporate pension and profit-sharing plan. It challenged a series of business transactions entered into by the company. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint when presented with a motion to dismiss.
• Photoworks adv. Drinkard: This nationwide consumer class action, on behalf of approximately five million Photoworks customers, challenged the company's marketing practices. The matter was favorably settled.
• The Hertz Corporation adv. Robinson: This consumer class action arose out of charges paid by Hertz customers when renting automobiles at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Hertz was dismissed from the action.
• Toyota Motor Sales adv. Tesfaye: This class action was brought on behalf of individuals purchasing vehicle service agreements from Toyota. Plaintiffs alleged that the Toyota agreements failed to make disclosures required by a Washington statute, and that as a result they were entitled to the remedies provided by the Consumer Protection Act. This matter was favorably settled.

Mr. Danelo was lead counsel in all of the above engagements with the exception of the In-Wall Heater Litigation, in which he was co-counsel with Arnold & Porter.