Mealey's (June 22, 2020, 3:12 PM EDT) -- SEATTLE — A covenant judgment improperly included the likely future cost of pursuing an insurer, permitting a double recovery by asbestos plaintiffs, the insurer told the Washington Supreme Court April 17. But in a June 1 opposition to the petition, the plaintiff argues that there is no pressing legal issue or conflict warranting review outside the insurer’s “factual fiction” (United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Robert T. Ulbricht, et al., No. 98434-4, Wash. Sup.)....