Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.96
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.96.041 (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) Whenever an action or proceeding for damages is brought against any past or present officer, employee, or volunteer of a local governmental entity of this state, arising from acts or omissions while performing or in good faith purporting to perform his or her official duties, such officer, employee, or volunteer may request the local governmental entity to authorize the defense of the action or proceeding at the expense of the local governmental entity.
(2) If the legislative authority of the local governmental entity, or the local governmental entity using a procedure created by ordinance or resolution, finds that the acts or omissions of the officer, employee, or volunteer were, or in good faith purported to be, within the scope of his or her official duties, the request shall be granted. If the request is granted, the necessary expenses of defending the action or proceeding shall be paid by the local governmental entity. Any monetary judgment against the officer, employee, or volunteer shall be paid on approval of the legislative authority of the local governmental entity or by a procedure for approval created by ordinance or resolution.
(3) The necessary expenses of defending an elective officer of the local governmental entity in a judicial hearing to determine the sufficiency of a recall charge as provided in *RCW 29.82.023 shall be paid by the local governmental entity if the officer requests such defense and approval is granted by both the legislative authority of the local governmental entity and the attorney representing the local governmental entity. The expenses paid by the local governmental entity may include costs associated with an appeal of the decision rendered by the superior court concerning the sufficiency of the recall charge.
(4) When an officer, employee, or volunteer of the local governmental entity has been represented at the expense of the local governmental entity under subsection (1) of this section and the court hearing the action has found that the officer, employee, or volunteer was acting within the scope of his or her official duties, and a judgment has been entered against the officer, employee, or volunteer under chapter 4.96 RCW or 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 et seq., thereafter the judgment creditor shall seek satisfaction for nonpunitive damages only from the local governmental entity, and judgment for nonpunitive damages shall not become a lien upon any property of such officer, employee, or volunteer. The legislative authority of a local governmental entity may, pursuant to a procedure created by ordinance or resolution, agree to pay an award for punitive damages.
[ 1993 c 449 s 4; 1989 c 250 s 1; 1979 ex.s. c 72 s 1. Formerly RCW 36.16.134.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: RCW 29.82.023 was recodified as RCW 29A.56.140 pursuant to 2003 c 111 s 2401, effective July 1, 2004.
Purpose—Severability—1993 c 449: See notes following RCW 4.96.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2024 · leading case: Eugster v. City of Spokane, 115 Wash. App. 740 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Eugster v. City of Spokane, 115 Wash. App. 740 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 18× “He contends that because RCW 4.96.041 does not say otherwise, it requires the city of Spokane to hire him to defend himself and his wife in a suit filed by a developer.”
Eugster v. City of Spokane, 63 P.3d 841 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 20× “He contends that because RCW 4.96.041 does not say otherwise, it requires the City of Spokane to hire him to defend himself and his wife in a suit filed by a developer.”
In Re the Recall of Lindquist, 258 P.3d 9 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 4× “" RCW 4.96.041(1). "If the ... governmental entity.”
Bosteder v. City of Renton, 117 P.3d 316 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 3× “Unlike Oregon, Oklahoma, and Indiana, Washington does not have a statute that requires plaintiffs to sue only the local government (rather than individual employees) for acts *329 committed within the scope of employment.”
Bosteder v. City of Renton, 155 Wash. 2d 18 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 3× “RCW 4.96.041 requires local governments to pay for the defense of their employees when they are sued individually for acts committed within the scope of their employment.”
Lee v. Jasman, 332 P.3d 1106 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “On November 7, 2012, Pierce County Deputy Prosecutor Douglas Vanscoy advised the Board on the application of RCW 4.96.041, the indemnity statute. Vanscoy wrote that in his opinion, RCW 4.”
Fast v. Kennewick Pub. Hosp. Dist., 354 P.3d 858 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “041(4) speaks of “subsection (1) of this section,” thereby designating RCW 4.96.041 as a section and RCW 4.96.041(1) as a subsection.”
Grant Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney v. Jasman, 354 P.3d 846 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 3× “By statute and our case law, prosecutors are required to represent county officers only when an officer is sued for money damages or when the county or State is the real party in interest.”
Wright v. Terrell, 145 P.3d 1230 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “Thus, whether plaintiffs name individuals in the suit, the local government entity, or both, the local government's finances will be implicated if the alleged acts occurred in the scope of the individuals' employment.”
Colby v. Yakima Cnty., 133 Wash. App. 386 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 9× “He argues the County was required by RCW 4.96.041 to provide him with a defense or defense costs.”
In re the Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 918 P.2d 493 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 2× “Appellant Washam also challenges the constitutionality of RCW 4.96.041(3), which gives local governmental entities the option to pay the expenses of local elective officers in defending recall charges.”
Colby v. Yakima Cnty., 136 P.3d 131 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 10× “He argues the County was required by RCW 4.96.041 to provide him with a defense or defense costs.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.96.041(1) — 14 cases
In Re the Recall of Lindquist, 258 P.3d 9 (Wash. 2011). “" RCW 4.96.041(1). "If the ... governmental entity.”
Grant Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney v. Jasman, 354 P.3d 846 (Wash. 2015). “By statute and our case law, prosecutors are required to represent county officers only when an officer is sued for money damages or when the county or State is the real party in interest.”
Eugster v. City of Spokane, 63 P.3d 841 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “He contends that because RCW 4.96.041 does not say otherwise, it requires the City of Spokane to hire him to defend himself and his wife in a suit filed by a developer.”
Fast v. Kennewick Pub. Hosp. Dist., 354 P.3d 858 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “041(4) speaks of “subsection (1) of this section,” thereby designating RCW 4.96.041 as a section and RCW 4.96.041(1) as a subsection.”
Wright v. Terrell, 145 P.3d 1230 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Thus, whether plaintiffs name individuals in the suit, the local government entity, or both, the local government's finances will be implicated if the alleged acts occurred in the scope of the individuals' employment.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.96.041(2) — 9 cases
In Re the Recall of Lindquist, 258 P.3d 9 (Wash. 2011). “" RCW 4.96.041(1). "If the ... governmental entity.”
Eugster v. City of Spokane, 63 P.3d 841 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “He contends that because RCW 4.96.041 does not say otherwise, it requires the City of Spokane to hire him to defend himself and his wife in a suit filed by a developer.”
Eugster v. City of Spokane, 115 Wash. App. 740 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “He contends that because RCW 4.96.041 does not say otherwise, it requires the city of Spokane to hire him to defend himself and his wife in a suit filed by a developer.”
Colby v. Yakima Cnty., 133 Wash. App. 386 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “He argues the County was required by RCW 4.96.041 to provide him with a defense or defense costs.”
Colby v. Yakima Cnty., 136 P.3d 131 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “He argues the County was required by RCW 4.96.041 to provide him with a defense or defense costs.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.96.041(3) — 5 cases
In re the Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 918 P.2d 493 (Wash. 1996). “Appellant Washam also challenges the constitutionality of RCW 4.96.041(3), which gives local governmental entities the option to pay the expenses of local elective officers in defending recall charges.”
In Re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 918 P.2d 493 (Wash. 1996).
In re the Recall Charges Against Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 Dir. Butler-Wall, 162 Wash. 2d 501 (Wash. 2007).
Matter of Recall Charges Against Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 173 P.3d 265 (Wash. 2007).
In re Recall of Weyrich, 554 P.3d 1202 (Wash. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.96.041(4) — 4 cases
Fast v. Kennewick Pub. Hosp. Dist., 354 P.3d 858 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “041(4) speaks of “subsection (1) of this section,” thereby designating RCW 4.96.041 as a section and RCW 4.96.041(1) as a subsection.”
Washington Counties Risk Pool v. Tamara Corter (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Kylie Hanson v. Miriam Gonzalez Carmona, et vir (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Shane Fast v. Kennewick Pub. Hosp. Dist. d/b/a Kennewick Gen. Hosp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
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.