Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 46.29.450 (2026)
Alternate methods of giving proof
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Proof of financial responsibility when required under this chapter, with respect to such a vehicle or with respect to a person who is not the owner of such a vehicle, may be given by filing:
(2) A bond as provided in RCW 46.29.520;
(3) A certificate of deposit of money or securities as provided in RCW 46.29.550; or
(4) A certificate of self-insurance, as provided in RCW 46.29.630, supplemented by an agreement by the self-insurer that, with respect to accidents occurring while the certificate is in force, he or she will pay the same amounts that an insurer would have been obliged to pay under an owner's motor vehicle liability policy if it had issued such a policy to said self-insurer.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2021 · leading case: Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. v. Wiscomb, 622 P.2d 1234 (Wash. 1980).
Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. v. Wiscomb, 622 P.2d 1234 (Wash. 1980). “RCW 46.29.450, .460. If a liability policy is furnished as proof, the statute requires that the policy " [s]hall insure the person named therein and any other person, as insured, using any such vehicle or vehicles with the express or implied permission of such named insured,…”
Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. v. Wiscomb, 643 P.2d 441 (Wash. 1982). “RCW 46.29.450. As a practical matter, the first method represents the only way most people can comply with the second prong of the act.”
Blackburn v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 697 P.2d 425 (Idaho 1985). “RCW 46.29.450. As a practical matter, the first method represents the only way most people can comply with the second prong of the act.”
Sayan v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 716 P.2d 895 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “) RCW 46.29.450(4). 5 We note that the phrase here quoted was employed in Washington's first financial responsibility statute, see Laws of 1939, ch.”
Shields v. Enter. Leasing Co., 161 P.3d 1068 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 46.29.450(2), (3), and (4). RCW 46.29.”
Miller v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 851 P.2d 1253 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “) RCW 46.29.450. See also RCW 46.29.260. An underinsured motor vehicle is defined in RCW 48.”
Wada v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 711 P.2d 384 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “RCW 46.29.450. 2 Because we find the custody exclusion to be neither ambiguous nor void, we need not consider Wada's claim under the Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.”
Johnson v. Dep't of Licensing, 731 P.2d 1097 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “RCW 46.29.450. Thus, the law affords protection both to those who have been injured by a driver in the past and those who may be injured by him in the future.”
Robertson v. Dorn (E.D. Wash. 2021). “(citing RCW 46.29.450, 46.29.260). 2 It is undisputed that the pickup truck in which Defendant Dorn collided with 3 Plaintiff was not “registered or principally garaged” in Washington.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.29.450(2) — 1 case
Shields v. Enter. Leasing Co., 161 P.3d 1068 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 46.29.450(2), (3), and (4). RCW 46.29.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.29.450(4) — 2 cases
Sayan v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 716 P.2d 895 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “) RCW 46.29.450(4). 5 We note that the phrase here quoted was employed in Washington's first financial responsibility statute, see Laws of 1939, ch.”
Miller v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 851 P.2d 1253 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “) RCW 46.29.450. See also RCW 46.29.260. An underinsured motor vehicle is defined in RCW 48.”
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.