having the test confined to a narrow legalistic definition’ ” (quoting Herman v. RSR Sec. Servs., Ltd., 172 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 1999))). 2 CR 56(c). 3 Elcon Constr., Inc. v. E. Wash. Univ., 174 Wn.2d 157, 164, 273 P.3d 965 (2012) (quoting Owen v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 153 Wn.2d 780, 789, 108 P.3d 1220 (2005)). 4 Young v. Key Pharm., Inc., 112 Wn.2d 216, 225, 770 P.2d 182 (1989). 5 Id. 6 Id. (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986)). 7 Baldwin v. Sisters of Providence in Wash., Inc., 112 Wn.2d 127, 132, 769 P.2d 298 (1989). 8 Young, 112 Wn.2d at 225-26. 9 Seven Gables Corp. v. MGM/UA Entm’t Co., 106 Wn.2d 1, 12, 721 P.2d 1 (1986). 10 See Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 174 Wn.2d 851, 866, 281 P.3d 289 (2012) (<HOLDING>). 11 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted)
holding that the question of whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment or while performing duties related to the conduct of the employers business for purposes of insurance coverage were questions of fact that precluded summary judgment particularly since there was a question regarding the employees intent in performing the act in question holding that an employers promise to pay a bonus to an employee was not enforceable where the employee was already obligated under a written contract to perform the services in question holding that under the mwa the question of whether an employee was an independent contractor or an employee was a question of statutory interpretation holding that the determination of whether an individual is an independent contractor lies in the common law and not under an express provision of the act holding that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law