Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.29.080 (2026)

Exceptions as to requirement of security

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The requirements as to security and suspension in this chapter shall not apply:

(1) To the driver or owner if the owner had in effect at the time of the accident an automobile liability policy or bond with respect to the vehicle involved in the accident, except that a driver shall not be exempt under this subsection if at the time of the accident the vehicle was being operated without the owner's permission, express or implied;

(2) To the driver, if not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, if there was in effect at the time of the accident an automobile liability policy or bond with respect to his or her driving of vehicles not owned by him or her;

(3) To the driver, if not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, if there was in effect at the time of the accident an automobile liability policy or bond as to which there is a bona fide dispute concerning coverage of such driver as evidenced by the pendency of litigation seeking a declaration of said driver's coverage under such policy or bond;

(4) To the driver, whether or not the owner, if there is a bona fide claim on the part of the driver that there was in effect at the time of the accident, an automobile liability policy or bond insuring or covering such driver;

(5) To any person qualifying as a self-insurer under RCW 46.29.630 or to any person operating a vehicle for such self-insurer;

(6) To the driver or the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident wherein no injury or damage was caused to the person or property of anyone other than such driver or owner;

(7) To the driver or owner of a vehicle which at the time of the accident was parked, unless such vehicle was parked at a place where parking was at the time of the accident prohibited under any applicable law or ordinance;

(8) To the owner of a vehicle if at the time of the accident the vehicle was being operated without his or her permission, express or implied, or was parked by a person who had been operating such vehicle without such permission, except if the vehicle was operated by his or her minor child or spouse;

(9) To the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident if at the time of the accident such vehicle was owned by or leased to the United States, this state or any political subdivision of this state or a municipality thereof, or to the driver of such vehicle if operating such vehicle with permission; or

(10) To the driver or the owner of a vehicle in the event at the time of the accident the vehicle was being operated by or under the direction of a police officer who, in the performance of his or her duties, shall have assumed custody of such vehicle.

[ 2010 c 8 s 9030; 1965 c 124 s 1; 1963 c 169 s 8.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1980–2007 · leading case: Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. v. Wiscomb, 622 P.2d 1234 (Wash. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. v. Wiscomb, 622 P.2d 1234 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 2× “110); or (b) come under one of several exemptions listed in RCW 46.29.080 which exemptions include an automobile liability policy or an automobile liability bond or a qualified self-insurer.”

Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. v. Wiscomb, 643 P.2d 441 (Wash. 1982). “Unless the individual already carries liability insurance coverage or can demonstrate financial responsibility in some other manner, see RCW 46.29.080, he must post an amount of security .”

Blackburn v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 697 P.2d 425 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 2× “Unless the individual already carries liability insurance coverage or an demonstrate financial responsibility in some other manner, see RCW 46.29.080, he must post an amount of security .”

Pub. Employees Mut. Ins. v. Hertz Corp., 800 P.2d 831 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.29.080(5). 1 But even if the policy of the FRA applied here, the prohibited use exclusion is not the kind of provision that violates public policy.”

Sayan v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 716 P.2d 895 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “RCW 46.29.080, 46.29-.090(3). Those without such coverage were required to deposit security, not only for that accident, but also as proof of future financial responsibility.”

New Hampshire Indem v. Budget Rent-A-Car, 35 P.3d 1180 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “2d 441 (1982) (citing RCW 46.29.080). If a qualifying accident occurs, the two-pronged approach of the FRA comes into play.”

New Hampshire Indem. Co. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 109 Wash. App. 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “2d 441 (1982) (citing RCW 46.29.080). If a qualifying accident occurs, the two-pronged approach of the FRA comes into play.”

Shields v. Enter. Leasing Co., 161 P.3d 1068 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 46.29.080. ¶18 And to the extent Shields is arguing that this court should require minimum third party liability coverage for all automobile liability policies, as a matter of public policy, our Supreme Court has rejected that argument.”

Miller v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 851 P.2d 1253 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “RCW 46.29.080(5). Second, the party causing the injury must demonstrate financial responsibility for the future by filing (1) A certificate of insurance as provided in RCW 46.”

Pub. Employees Mut. Ins. v. Mucklestone, 758 P.2d 987 (Wash. 1988). “See RCW 46.29.080(5), (9) which recognizes a distinction between self-insurers and governments by providing separate exclusions for these entities for security in the event of an accident.”

Johnson v. Dep't of Licensing, 731 P.2d 1097 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “(5) Whether the licensee is entitled to an exception to the requirement of security pursuant to RCW 46.29.080. *705 (Italics ours.) WAC 308-102-250.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.29.080(5) — 3 cases

Pub. Employees Mut. Ins. v. Hertz Corp., 800 P.2d 831 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “RCW 46.29.080(5). 1 But even if the policy of the FRA applied here, the prohibited use exclusion is not the kind of provision that violates public policy.”

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.