Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.92
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.100 (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) All claims against the state, or against the state's officers, employees, or volunteers, acting in such capacity, for damages arising out of tortious conduct, must be presented to the office of risk management. A claim is deemed presented when the claim form is delivered in person or by regular mail, registered mail, or certified mail, with return receipt requested, or as an attachment to email or by fax, to the office of risk management. For claims for damages presented after July 26, 2009, all claims for damages must be presented on the standard tort claim form that is maintained by the office of risk management. The standard tort claim form must be posted on the department of enterprise services' website.
(a) The standard tort claim form must, at a minimum, require the following information:
(i) The claimant's name, date of birth, and contact information;
(ii) A description of the conduct and the circumstances that brought about the injury or damage;
(iii) A description of the injury or damage;
(iv) A statement of the time and place that the injury or damage occurred;
(v) A listing of the names of all persons involved and contact information, if known;
(vi) A statement of the amount of damages claimed; and
(vii) A statement of the actual residence of the claimant at the time of presenting the claim and at the time the claim arose.
(b)(i) The standard tort claim form must be signed either:
(A) By the claimant, verifying the claim;
(B) Pursuant to a written power of attorney, by the attorney-in-fact for the claimant;
(C) By an attorney admitted to practice in Washington state on the claimant's behalf; or
(D) By a court-approved guardian or guardian ad litem on behalf of the claimant.
(ii) For the purpose of this subsection (1)(b), when the claim form is presented electronically it must bear an electronic signature in lieu of a written original signature.
(iii) When an electronic signature is used and the claim is submitted as an attachment to email, the conveyance of that claim must include the date, time the claim was presented, and the internet provider's address from which it was sent. The attached claim form must be a format approved by the office of risk management.
(iv) When an electronic signature is used and the claim is submitted via a facsimile machine, the conveyance must include the date, time the claim was submitted, and the fax number from which it was sent.
(v) In the event of a question on an electronic signature, the claimant shall have an opportunity to cure and the cured notice shall relate back to the date of the original filing.
(c) The amount of damages stated on the claim form is not admissible at trial.
(2) The state shall make available the standard tort claim form described in this section with instructions on how the form is to be presented and the name, address, and business hours of the office of risk management. The standard tort claim form must not list the claimant's social security number and must not require information not specified under this section. The claim form and the instructions for completing the claim form must provide the United States mail, physical, and electronic addresses and numbers where the claim can be presented.
(3) With respect to the content of claims under this section and all procedural requirements in this section, this section must be liberally construed so that substantial compliance will be deemed satisfactory.
[ 2020 c 57 s 21; 2013 c 188 s 1; 2012 c 250 s 1; 2009 c 433 s 2; 2006 c 82 s 1; 2002 c 332 s 12; 1986 c 126 s 7; 1979 c 151 s 3; 1977 ex.s. c 144 s 2; 1967 c 164 s 2; 1963 c 159 s 3.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective date—2002 c 332: See notes following RCW 43.19.760.
Purpose—Severability—1967 c 164: See notes following RCW 4.96.010.
Puget Sound ferry and toll bridge system, claims against: RCW 47.60.250.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 81 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Cook v. State, 521 P.2d 725 (Wash. 1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cook v. State, 521 P.2d 725 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 30× “The King County Superior Court dismissed the suit upon the basis that the requirements of RCW 4.92.100, our "nonclaim" statute, had not been met, in that more than 120 days had elapsed between the date of the accident and the filing of a claim.”
Schoonover v. State, 64 P.3d 677 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 16× “The trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Schoonover failed to personally verify his complaint as required by RCW 4.92.100. Schoonover appeals the trial court's decision arguing that it was based on an incorrect…”
Schoonover v. State, 116 Wash. App. 171 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 16× “The trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Schoonover failed to personally verify his complaint as required by RCW 4.92.100. Schoonover appeals the trial court’s decision arguing that it was based on *176 an…”
Shafer v. State, 521 P.2d 736 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 26× “Dismissal was predicated upon plaintiff's failure to file a claim with the state auditor within 120 days from the date of her injury pursuant to RCW 4.92.100. The relevant facts as alleged are these: On March 29, 1968, the plaintiff, Mrs.”
Hyde v. Univ. of Washington Med. Ctr., 347 P.3d 918 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 7× “A nonprofit corporation that is functionally an arm of the State is subject to the tort claim filing requirements of RCW 4.92.100 and .110. The Association of University Physicians, d/b/a UW Physicians (UWP), a nonprofit corporation, provides physician services *928 by…”
Gates v. Port of Kalama, 215 P.3d 983 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “Although counsel signed the claim on Schoonover's behalf after the client executed a durable power of attorney, the trial court nevertheless dismissed the case because Schoonover failed to personally verify his claim under former RCW 4.92.100 (2002). [7] Schoonover, 116 Wash.”
Levy v. State, 957 P.2d 1272 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 5× “II The claim filing statute, RCW 4.92.100, states: All claims against the state for damages arising out of tortious conduct shall be presented to and filed with the risk management office.”
Hunter v. North Mason Sch. Dist., 539 P.2d 845 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 4× “Five of the Justices rested their decision on the ground that the plaintiff's age and disabilities excused her noncompliance with RCW 4.92.100, which requires notice of claims against the state within 120 days from the date they arise.”
Ranger Ins. Co. v. Pierce Cnty., 192 P.3d 886 (Wash. 2008). “[3] The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment.”
Ranger Ins. v. Pierce Cnty., 164 Wash. 2d 545 (Wash. 2008). “3 The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary judgment.”
O'donoghue v. State, 405 P.2d 258 (Wash. 1965). · cites it 6× “However, RCW 4.92.100, which was enacted by the 1963 session of the legislature, provides in part: All claims against the state for damages arising out of tortious conduct shall be presented to and filed with the *789 state auditor within one hundred twenty days from the date…”
McDevitt v. Harborview Med. Ctr., 316 P.3d 469 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “The general provision establishing the preclaim notice requirement, former RCW 4.92.100 (2009), was amended to exclude health care injuries, providing more equal treatment for plaintiffs and defendants alike.”
Show all 81 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.100(1) — 12 cases
McDevitt v. Harborview Med. Ctr., 316 P.3d 469 (Wash. 2013). “The general provision establishing the preclaim notice requirement, former RCW 4.92.100 (2009), was amended to exclude health care injuries, providing more equal treatment for plaintiffs and defendants alike.”
Hyde v. Univ. of Washington Med. Ctr., 347 P.3d 918 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “A nonprofit corporation that is functionally an arm of the State is subject to the tort claim filing requirements of RCW 4.92.100 and .110. The Association of University Physicians, d/b/a UW Physicians (UWP), a nonprofit corporation, provides physician services *928 by…”
In re C.V., 428 P.3d 407 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State Of Washington, Et Ano., V. Danielle Sterling & Darren Sterling (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Sarah Evison, App. v. David Vossler, M.d., Et Ano., Resps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.100(1)(a) — 1 case
Tanya I. Stock v. Harborview Med. Ctr., Et Ano. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.100(1)(a)(v) — 1 case
Leishman v. Washington Attorney Gen.'s Off. (W.D. Wash. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.100(2002) — 1 case
Gates v. Port of Kalama, 215 P.3d 983 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Although counsel signed the claim on Schoonover's behalf after the client executed a durable power of attorney, the trial court nevertheless dismissed the case because Schoonover failed to personally verify his claim under former RCW 4.92.100 (2002). [7] Schoonover, 116 Wash.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.100(3) — 6 cases
In re C.V., 428 P.3d 407 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State Of Washington v. C. v. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State Of Washington, Et Ano., V. Danielle Sterling & Darren Sterling (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Daisy A. Amo v. Harborview Med. Ctr., Et Ano (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Leishman v. Washington Attorney Gen.'s Off. (W.D. Wash. 2021).
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.