Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 25.15.061 (2026)
Piercing the veil
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Members of a limited liability company are personally liable for any act, debt, obligation, or liability of the limited liability company to the extent that shareholders of a Washington business corporation would be liable in analogous circumstances. In this regard, the court may consider the factors and policies set forth in established case law with regard to piercing the corporate veil, except that the failure to hold meetings of members or managers or the failure to observe formalities pertaining to the calling or conduct of meetings is not a factor tending to establish that the members have personal liability for any act, debt, obligation, or liability of the limited liability company if the certificate of formation and limited liability company agreement do not expressly require the holding of meetings of members or managers.
[ 2015 c 188 s 17.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2019–2023 · leading case: Montierth v. Dorssers, 539 P.3d 578 (Idaho 2023).
Montierth v. Dorssers, 539 P.3d 578 (Idaho 2023). “7 See Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 25.15.061 6 “However, it may be necessary to demonstrate circumstances amounting to an absolute and unqualified acknowledgment by the principal that an additional amount is due.”
Northgate Ventures Llc v. Geoffrey H. Garrett Pllc, 450 P.3d 1210 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “2d at ' 482); RCW 25.15.061 (recognizing limited application of common law piercing the corporate veil doctrine to PLLCs).”
Vladan R. Milosavljevic v. Margaret L. Curtis (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “at 123 ; RCW25.15.061. Acourt may disregard the LLC form and impose liability on its members in circumstances where (1) the LLC form is used intentionally to violate or evade a duty, and (2) disregard is necessary and required to prevent unjustified loss to the injured party.”
Larissa Sobjack v. Casey Lee Sobjack (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “The doctrine of veil piercing to allow courts to disregard a corporate entity only applies when the member of the LLC or shareholder of the corporation uses the business entity to intentionally violate or evade a duty owed not limited to transfers involving corporations and…”
Breanna Dee Madrid (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2022). “126 (“[N]o member or manager of a limited liability 26 company is obligated personally for any such debt, obligation, or liability of the limited 27 liability company solely by reason of being or acting as a member or manager respectively 1 of the limited liability company”);…”
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.