Contact Us
206-801-1188
425-641-8010

Toll Free
877-50-INJURY
(877-504-6587)

Free Confidential
Personal Injury Case Evaluation



Eller Law Firm on Facebook

Washington Bad Faith Insurance Claims Practices

Washington courts have imposed a duty of good faith practices on insurance companies for more than half a century. This duty of good faith has been codified by the legislature. The insurance commissioner pursuant to authority vested by the legislature has promulgated regulations defining specific acts and practices which constitute a breach of an insurer’s duty of good faith.

In 2007 voters in Washington approved Referendum 67 (“R67″) and the Washington Insurance Fair Conduct Act.

The Insurance Fair Conduct Act gives first party claimants a cause of action for unreasonable denial of coverage or payment of benefits by an insurer. The act authorizes recovery of actual damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, litigation costs, and punitive damages at the discretion of the court.

A first party claimant is someone who is “asserting a right to payment as a covered person”. By case law PIP and UIM beneficiaries under an auto insurance policy are first party claimants. [1]

Third party insurance beneficiaries may be entitled to punitive damages under already existing Washington case law. [2]

Also, both first and third party insureds may have the possibility to pursue damages, including a capped punitive damages claim, under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. [3]

To pursue a claim under the Insurance Fair Conduct Act a claimant must serve notice on the insurance company and the insurance commissioner twenty days before filing an action in court.

An insurance carrier’s denial of a claim is not, in and of itself, bad faith. The law of good faith insurance practices has evolved over a long period of time and is complex.

This article is a short summary of the law of insurance claims practices in Washington and is not a substitute for legal advice. If you have questions about insurance claims practices you should consult an attorney.


[1] Rones v. Safeco Ins.Co., 119 Wn.2d 650, 835 P.2d 1036 (1992).

[2] Safeco v. Butler, 188 Wn.2d 383, 823 P.2d 499 (1992), Kirk v. Mt. Airy Ins. Co., 134 Wn.2d 1124 (1998).

[3] RCW 19.86.090.

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Personal Injury Attorney
Injury Case Evaluation
Free personal injury attorney case evaluation.
  • Washington Courts Rule on Landlord Liability for Dog Bite Injury
     Our law firm was not involved in the personal injury lawsuit described in this article. A recent Washington Court of Appeals decision considered arguments for landlord liability for dog bite injury.  The plaintiff was injured in a common areas by a dog owned by another tenant. The plaintiff claimed that the dog had attacked other […]
  • Court Dismisses Case for Improper Service of Summons and Complaint
    Our law firm was not involved in the personal injury lawsuit described in this article. In a recent decision the Washington Court of Appeals considered an issue of service of a summons and complaint. [1] Proper service of the summons and complaint is a prerequisite to the court obtaining jurisdiction over a party, and a […]
  • Medical Malpractice Statute Notice Requirements Declared Unconstitutional
    Our law firm was not involved in the personal injury lawsuit described in this article. Washington medical malpractice statutes had required an injury claimant to both obtain a certificate of merit from an expert before filing suit and to give 90 days notice to a health care provider before filing suit. Last year the Washington […]
  • Landowner Duty to Police in Washington
    Our law firm was not involved in the personal injury lawsuit described in this article. In a recent premises liability case Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals considered what duty, if any, a landowner owes to a police officer.[1] On the night of December 20, 2005, a King County Sheriff’s Department Deputy entered […]
  • Woman Claiming Injury Unsuccessfully Argues Appeal Without an Attorney
    Our law firm was not involved in the personal injury lawsuit described in this article. A woman who fell and was in injured appealed the trial court results. She unsuccessfully argued her appeal without the assistance of an attorney. She injured her ankle when she slipped on a substance on the floor in a Safeway […]
  • Person Who Fell on Wet Floor Sign Wins Appeal
    Our law firm was not involved in the personal injury lawsuit described in this article. A customer slipped and fell on a fallen wet floor sign. The trial court dismissed the case on Petsmart’s motion for summary judgment. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed. The customer several minutes browsing the dog toy aisle. He caught […]
  • Auto Accident Injury Victim’s Default Judgment Set Aside
    Our law firm was not involved in the personal injury lawsuit described in this article. A woman injured in a motor vehicle accident served the Washington Secretary of State because she was unable to locate the other driver to effect personal service.  The trial court entered a default judgment.  The court awarded $12,000 in general […]
  • Oil Slick from Truck Allegedly Causes Accident
    Our law firm was not involved in the personal injury lawsuit described in this article. The Washington Court of Appeals ruled on a case in which it was alleged that an oil slick from a truck on the interstate highway caused a vehicle to loose control and leave the highway, rolling over several times.[1] A […]
    Personal Injury Attorney serving entire Puget Sound

  • King County including Seattle, Kent, Auburn, Renton, Federal Way, Bellevue, Bothell
  • Pierce County including Tacoma, Puyallup, Lakewood
  • Snohomish County including Everett, Lynnwood, Edmonds, Marysville

Lawyers blogs Resources Medical Malpractice Legal Resources - Regional information on medical personal injury resources.