Wash. Rev. Code » Title 11 · Chapter 11.40
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 11.40.060 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The time limitations for presenting claims under this chapter do not accrue to the benefit of any liability or casualty insurer. Claims against the decedent or the decedent's marital community that can be fully satisfied by applicable insurance coverage or proceeds need not be presented within the time limitation of RCW 11.40.051, but the amount of recovery cannot exceed the amount of the insurance. The claims may at any time be presented as provided in RCW 11.40.070, subject to the otherwise relevant statutes of limitations, and do not constitute a cloud, lien, or encumbrance upon the title to the decedent's probate or nonprobate assets nor delay or prevent the conclusion of probate proceedings or the transfer or distribution of assets of the estate. This section does not serve to extend any otherwise relevant statutes of limitations.
[ 1997 c 252 s 12; 1974 ex.s. c 117 s 37; 1965 c 145 s 11.40.060. Prior: 1917 c 156 s 112; RRS s 1482; prior: Code 1881 s 1472; 1873 p 285 s 159; 1869 p 166 s 665; 1854 p 281 s 84.]

Notes:

Application—1997 c 252 ss 1-73: See note following RCW 11.02.005.
Application, construction—Severability—Effective date—1974 ex.s. c 117: See RCW 11.02.080 and notes following.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: Nelson v. Schnautz, 141 Wash. App. 466 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nelson v. Schnautz, 141 Wash. App. 466 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 13× “Thereafter, RCW 11.40.060 limits the amount of the recovery against the estate to the applicable insurance proceeds.”
Nelson v. Schnautz, 170 P.3d 69 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 11× “Thereafter, RCW 11.40.060 limits the amount of the recovery against the estate to the applicable insurance proceeds.”
Sloans v. Berry, 358 P.3d 426 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Error in the form of action by which suit is brought on a creditor claim is harmless as long as the personal representative is sued in superior court within 30 days of rejection: RCW 11.40.060 [now RCW 11.40.100] requires that suits upon rejected claims be brought “in the proper…”
Marquam v. Ellis, 621 P.2d 190 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “The sole issue is whether the rejection notice sent to the claimant's attorney was sufficient compliance with RCW 11.”
Williams-Moore v. Est. of Shaw, 122 Wash. App. 871 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “Williams-Moore also relies on the provisions of RCW 11.40.060 to argue that an insurance company should not benefit from her delay in posting a bond because insurers are not afforded the same protection in probate as beneficiaries and heirs.”
Rutter v. Rutter, 370 P.2d 862 (Wash. 1962). “At the outset, it is to be borne in mind that, under RCW 11.40.060, respondent’s action, in this case, upon her decree, is a civil action, not a part of the probate or divorce proceedings.”
Lind v. Frick, 550 P.2d 709 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). “1 Former RCW 11.40.060, Laws of 1965, ch. 145 provides: “Suit on Rejected Claim.”
Schluneger v. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank, 292 P.2d 203 (Wash. 1956). “RCW 11.40.060 provides: “When a claim is rejected by either the executor, admintrator, or the court, the holder must bring suit in the proper court against the executor or administrator within thirty days after notification of the rejection, otherwise the claim shall be forever…”
McWhorter v. Bush, 502 P.2d 1224 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). “Defendant first contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss wherein he claimed plaintiffs failed to properly and timely file their actions in the superior court.”
Mallicott v. Nelson, 293 P.2d 404 (Wash. 1956). “RCW 11.40.060. Therefore, the administratrix may not take advantage of her own failure to comply with the statutory provision as to the method of notifying respondent of her rejection of his claim, as she has attempted to do.”
Gilkes v. Beezer, 484 P.2d 493 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “RCW 11.40.060; Schluneger v. Seattle-First Nat’l Bank, supra.”
Williams-Moore v. Est. of Shaw, 96 P.3d 433 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “[18] Williams-Moore also relies on the provisions of RCW 11.40.060 to argue that an insurance company should not benefit from her delay in posting a bond because insurers are not afforded the same protection in probate as beneficiaries and heirs.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.