Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.30
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.30.010 (2026)

Legislative intent

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It is a privilege granted by the state to operate a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state. The legislature recognizes the threat that uninsured drivers are to the people of the state. In order to alleviate the threat posed by uninsured drivers it is the intent of the legislature to require that all persons driving vehicles registered in this state satisfy the financial responsibility requirements of this chapter. By enactment of this chapter it is not the intent of the legislature to modify, amend, or invalidate existing insurance contract terms, conditions, limitations, or exclusions or to preclude insurance companies from using similar terms, conditions, limitations, or exclusions in future contracts.
[ 1989 c 353 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1993–2014 · leading case: Quinn Kyrkos v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 852 P.2d 1078 (Wash. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Quinn Kyrkos v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 852 P.2d 1078 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.30.010. One method by which a party can meet this requirement is through possession of a validly issued certificate of self-insurance from the State.”
Planet Ins. v. Wong, 877 P.2d 198 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “Next, the Muresans argue that no indication is given on either the front or the back of the rental agreement "that Wong would forfeit the blanket insurance provided under RCW 46.30.010 AND 46.30.020.” Br. of Appellant, at 16.”
Mendoza v. Rivera-Chavez, 140 Wash. 2d 659 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 2× “510(1)), and points to the provision of the mandatory liability insurance act which states that it is not intended to “modify, amend, or invalidate existing insurance contract terms, conditions, limitations, or exclusions” (RCW 46.30.010). However, this argument loses the forest…”
Mendoza v. Rivera-Chavez, 999 P.2d 29 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 2× “510(1)), and points to the provision of the mandatory liability insurance act which states that it is not intended to "modify, amend, or invalidate existing insurance contract terms, conditions, limitations, or exclusions" (RCW 46.30.010). However, this argument loses the forest…”
Huff v. Budbill, 1 P.3d 1138 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 46.30.010. In addition, Washington is a party jurisdiction to the nonresident violator compact, which includes the following finding: In most instances, a motorist who is cited for a traffic violation in a jurisdiction other than his home jurisdiction: Must post collateral…”
Huff v. Budbill, 1 P.3d 1138 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 46.30.010. In addition, Washington is a party jurisdiction to the nonresident violator compact, which includes the following finding: In most instances, a motorist who is cited for a traffic violation in a jurisdiction other than his home jurisdiction: Must post collateral…”
Allstate Indem. Co., App. v. Mirtha Angarita, Et Ano., Resps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “" RCW 46.30.010. As our Supreme Court stated in Mendoza v.”
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.