Wash. Rev. Code » Title 18 · Chapter 18.27
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.27.050 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) At the time of registration and subsequent reregistration, the applicant shall furnish insurance or financial responsibility in the form of an assigned account in the amount of fifty thousand dollars for injury or damages to property, and one hundred thousand dollars for injury or damage including death to any one person, and two hundred thousand dollars for injury or damage including death to more than one person.
(2) An expiration, cancellation, or revocation of the insurance policy or withdrawal of the insurer from the insurance policy automatically suspends the registration issued to the registrant until a new insurance policy or reinstatement notice has been filed and approved as provided in this section.
(3)(a) Proof of financial responsibility authorized in this section may be given by providing, in the amount required by subsection (1) of this section, an assigned account acceptable to the department. The assigned account shall be held by the department to satisfy any execution on a judgment issued against the contractor for damage to property or injury or death to any person occurring in the contractor's contracting operations, according to the provisions of the assigned account agreement. The department shall have no liability for payment in excess of the amount of the assigned account.
(b) The assigned account filed with the director as proof of financial responsibility shall be canceled at the expiration of three years after:
(i) The contractor's registration has expired or been revoked; or
(ii) The contractor has furnished proof of insurance as required by subsection (1) of this section;
if, in either case, no legal action has been instituted against the contractor or on the account at the expiration of the three-year period.
(c) If a contractor chooses to file an assigned account as authorized in this section, the contractor shall, on any contracting project, notify each person with whom the contractor enters into a contract or to whom the contractor submits a bid that the contractor has filed an assigned account in lieu of insurance and that recovery from the account for any claim against the contractor for property damage or personal injury or death occurring in the project requires the claimant to obtain a court judgment.
[ 2001 c 159 s 4; 1987 c 303 s 1; 1963 c 77 s 5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1970–2023 · leading case: Murphy v. Campbell Inv. Co., 486 P.2d 1080 (Wash. 1971).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Murphy v. Campbell Inv. Co., 486 P.2d 1080 (Wash. 1971). · cites it 8× “Appellants' application, dated November 4, 1967, was received by the division on November 8, and was rejected because appellants — who, in fact, carried public liability and property damage insurance as required by RCW 18.27.050 — failed to include proof of such insurance in…”
HB Dev., LLC v. W. Pac. Mut. Ins., 86 F. Supp. 3d 1164 (E.D. Wash. 2015). · cites it 5× “Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment and breach of contract claims against Western.”
Kagele v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 698 P.2d 90 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “It is apparent that the question of coverage, which involves material questions of fact, must be resolved before the issues raised in the present action can be decided. Thus, determination of this action is premature.”
Davidson v. Hensen, 954 P.2d 1327 (Wash. 1998). “040; and (3) the contractor has current insurance as required by RCW 18.27.050. In determining under this section whether a contractor is in substantial compliance with the registration requirements of this chapter, the court shall take into consideration the length of time…”
Davidson v. Hensen, 135 Wash. 2d 112 (Wash. 1998). “040; and (3) the contractor has current insurance as required by RCW 18.27.050. In determining under this section whether a contractor is in substantial compliance with the registration requirements of this chapter, the court shall take into consideration the length of time…”
Bort v. Parker, 110 Wash. App. 561 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “For the purposes of this section, the court shall not find a contractor in substantial compliance with the registration requirements of this chapter unless: (1) The department has on file the information required by RCW 18.”
Bort v. Parker, 42 P.3d 980 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “For the purposes of this section, the court shall not find a contractor in substantial compliance with the registration requirements of this chapter unless: (1) The department has on file the information required by RCW 18.27.030; (2) the contractor has a current bond or other…”
Bremmeyer v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 555 P.2d 1183 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 3× “040 and RCW 18.27.050. To achieve the act’s purpose of protecting the public from unreliable contractors, the bond required by RCW 18.”
Bremmeyer v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 585 P.2d 1174 (Wash. 1978). “040, requiring a contractor's surety bond; and in RCW 18.27.050, requiring a contractor to obtain public liability and property damage insurance.”
Harman v. Pierce Cnty. Bldg. Dep't, 720 P.2d 433 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 9× “See RCW 18.27.050. Harman claims that the State negligently approved the contractor's inadequate insurance policy and that the County negligently issued a building permit to a contractor whose license had lapsed.”
Expert Drywall, Inc. v. Brain, 564 P.2d 803 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “040 and the liability insurance required by RCW 18.27.050. But for a technical defect in the appellants' original application for registration, the appellants would have possessed the requisite registration prior to the date upon which the parties entered into their written…”
Williamson, Inc. v. Calibre Homes, Inc., 23 P.3d 1118 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “In 1997, the legislature added a new section providing: "This chapter shall be strictly enforced. Therefore, the doctrine of substantial compliance shall not be used by the department in the application and construction of this chapter.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.27.050(1) — 1 case
Preferred Contractors Ins. Co. Risk Retention Grp. LLC v. Baker & Son Constr. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023).
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.