Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.56.260 (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) In an action based on fault seeking damages for personal injury or property damage in which a verdict or award for future economic damages of at least one hundred thousand dollars is made, the court or arbitrator shall, at the request of a party, enter a judgment which provides for the periodic payment in whole or in part of the future economic damages. With respect to the judgment, the court or arbitrator shall make a specific finding as to the dollar amount of periodic payments intended to compensate the judgment creditor for the future economic damages.

(2) Prior to entry of judgment, the court shall request each party to submit a proposal for periodic payment of future economic damages to compensate the claimant. Proposals shall include provisions for: The name of the recipient or recipients of the payments, the dollar amount of the payments, the interval between payments, the number of payments or the period of time over which the payments shall be made, modification for hardship or unforeseen circumstances, posting of adequate security, and any other factor the court deems relevant under the circumstances. After each party has submitted a proposal, the court shall select the proposal, with any changes the court deems proper, which in the discretion of the court and the interests of justice best provides for the future needs of the claimant and enter judgment accordingly.

(3) If the court enters a judgment for periodic payments and any security required by the judgment is not posted within thirty days, the court shall enter a judgment for the payment of future damages in a lump sum.

(4) If at any time following entry of judgment for periodic payments, a judgment debtor fails for any reason to make a payment in a timely fashion according to the terms of the judgment, the judgment creditor may petition the court for an order requiring payment by the judgment debtor of the outstanding payments in a lump sum. In calculating the amount of the lump sum judgment, the court shall total the remaining periodic payments due and owing to the judgment creditor converted to present value. The court may also require payment of interest on the outstanding judgment.

(5) Upon the death of the judgment creditor, the court which rendered the original judgment may, upon petition of any party in interest, modify the judgment to award and apportion the unpaid future damages. Money damages awarded for loss of future earnings shall not be reduced or payments terminated by reason of the death of the judgment creditor.

(6) Upon satisfaction of a periodic payment judgment, any obligation of the judgment debtor to make further payments shall cease and any security posted pursuant to this section shall revert to the judgment debtor.

[ 1986 c 305 s 801.]

Notes:

Preamble—Report to legislature—Applicability—Severability—1986 c 305: See notes following RCW 4.16.160.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2022 · leading case: Esparza v. Skyreach Equip., Inc., 15 P.3d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Esparza v. Skyreach Equip., Inc., 15 P.3d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “The court also denied Skyreach's post-verdict motion to convert the jury's award of future economic damages to a stream of periodic payments under RCW 4.56.260 because Skyreach failed to notify Esparza of its intention to request such relief before the jury returned its verdict.”

Esparza v. Skyreach Equip., Inc., 103 Wash. App. 916 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “The court also denied Skyreach’s postverdict motion to convert the jury’s award of future economic damages to a stream of periodic payments under RCW 4.56.260 because Skyreach failed to notify Esparza of its intention to request such relief before the jury returned its verdict.”

Vanhoy v. United States, 514 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “260(2), the court is required to request that each party submit a proposal for periodic payment of future economic damages prior to entry of the judgment. Wash. Rev.Code § 4.56.260(2).”

Sheikh v. Choe, 128 P.3d 574 (Wash. 2006). “State raises four issues on appeal: (1) whether DSHS owed a duty to Aba Sheikh, (2) whether there was sufficient evidence to support a proximate cause finding, (3) whether the trial court improperly denied the State's proposed Tegman [1] instruction, and (4) whether the trial…”

Aba Sheikh v. Choe, 156 Wash. 2d 441 (Wash. 2006). “te raises four issues on appeal: (1) whether DSHS owed a duty to Aba Sheikh, (2) whether there was sufficient evidence to support a proximate cause finding, (3) whether the trial court improperly denied the State’s pro *445 posed Tegman 1 instruction, and (4) whether the trial…”

Bruce Wolf, Respondent/cross-appellant V. Jefferson Healthcare, Appellants/cross-respondents (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 54× “The Burkes cross-appeal the court’s order to amend the judgment on the jury’s verdict to provide for periodic payments of future economic damages under RCW 4.56.260. This appeal arises out of the Burkes’ lawsuit alleging that JHC failed to properly monitor their baby daughter…”

Cornejo v. State, 788 P.2d 554 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “RCW 4.56.260. The facts on which the State's expert relied here are of the "type reasonably relied upon" by economists.”

Pacheco v. United States (W.D. Wash. 2021). · cites it 9× “2007) (“After the United States requested 19 that the district court apply § 4.”

Lister v. Hyatt Corp. (W.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “Hyatt’s Twelfth Affirmative Defense – Future Economic Damages 14 In its twelfth affirmative defense, Hyatt states that if an award for future economic 15 damages meets the statutory threshold amount, it intends to invoke the provisions of 16 RCW 4.56.260. (Am. Answer at 6.)…”

Ream v. United States (W.D. Wash. 2020). · cites it 2× “See RCW § 4.56.260. Mathematical exactness is not required because 19 the need for future medical treatment raises a presumption that the plaintiff 20 will incur related costs.”

Lister v. Hyatt Corp. (W.D. Wash. 2019). “Lister receives 2 from any other party, nonparty, or entity at fault. (Am. Answer at 5.) In its twelfth 3 affirmative defense, Hyatt states that if an award for future economic damages meets the 4 statutory threshold amount, it intends to invoke the provisions of RCW 4.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.56.260(1) — 4 cases

Esparza v. Skyreach Equip., Inc., 15 P.3d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “The court also denied Skyreach's post-verdict motion to convert the jury's award of future economic damages to a stream of periodic payments under RCW 4.56.260 because Skyreach failed to notify Esparza of its intention to request such relief before the jury returned its verdict.”

Esparza v. Skyreach Equip., Inc., 103 Wash. App. 916 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “The court also denied Skyreach’s postverdict motion to convert the jury’s award of future economic damages to a stream of periodic payments under RCW 4.56.260 because Skyreach failed to notify Esparza of its intention to request such relief before the jury returned its verdict.”

Bruce Wolf, Respondent/cross-appellant V. Jefferson Healthcare, Appellants/cross-respondents (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “The Burkes cross-appeal the court’s order to amend the judgment on the jury’s verdict to provide for periodic payments of future economic damages under RCW 4.56.260. This appeal arises out of the Burkes’ lawsuit alleging that JHC failed to properly monitor their baby daughter…”

Pacheco v. United States (W.D. Wash. 2021). “2007) (“After the United States requested 19 that the district court apply § 4.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.56.260(2) — 3 cases

Vanhoy v. United States, 514 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2008). “260(2), the court is required to request that each party submit a proposal for periodic payment of future economic damages prior to entry of the judgment. Wash. Rev.Code § 4.56.260(2).”

Pacheco v. United States (W.D. Wash. 2021). “2007) (“After the United States requested 19 that the district court apply § 4.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.56.260(4) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.56.260(5) — 1 case

Pacheco v. United States (W.D. Wash. 2021). “2007) (“After the United States requested 19 that the district court apply § 4.”

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.