Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.64
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.64.040 (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)(a) A nonresident accepts the rights and privileges conferred by law in the use of the public highways of this state, as evidenced by:
(i) Operation of a vehicle thereon; or
(ii) The operation thereon of the nonresident's vehicle with the nonresident's consent, express or implied.
(b) Acceptance under (a) of this subsection shall be deemed equivalent to and construed to be an appointment by such nonresident of the secretary of state of the state of Washington to be the nonresident's true and lawful attorney upon whom may be served all lawful summons and processes against the nonresident growing out of any accident, collision, or liability in which such nonresident may be involved while operating a vehicle upon the public highways, or while the nonresident's vehicle is being operated thereon with the nonresident's consent, express or implied.
(2) Operation and acceptance under subsection (1) of this section shall be a signification of the nonresident's agreement that any summons or process against the nonresident which is so served shall be of the same legal force and validity as if served on the nonresident personally within the state of Washington.
(3) A resident of this state appoints the secretary of state of the state of Washington as the person's lawful attorney for service of summons or process as provided in this section for nonresidents, if the resident, while operating a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state:
(a) Is involved in any accident, collision, or liability; and
(b) Thereafter at any time within the following three years cannot, after a due and diligent search, be found in this state.
(4) Service of such summons or process under subsections (1) and (3) of this section shall be made by leaving a copy for record and for each address to be served thereof with a fee established by the secretary of state by rule with the secretary of state of the state of Washington, or at the secretary of state's office.
(5) Service under subsection (4) of this section shall be sufficient and valid personal service upon said resident or nonresident provided that:
(a) Notice of such service and a copy of the summons or process is forthwith sent by registered mail with return receipt requested, by plaintiff to the defendant at the last known address of the said defendant; and
(b) The plaintiff's affidavit of compliance herewith are appended to the process, together with:
(i) The affidavit of the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney that the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney has with due diligence attempted to serve personal process upon the defendant at all addresses of the defendant known to the plaintiff or attorney;
(ii) A further listing in the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney's affidavit of the addresses at which the plaintiff or attorney attempted to have process served; and
(iii) If there are no known addresses, a statement to that effect within the plaintiff's or plaintiff's attorney's affidavit.
(6) If process is forwarded by registered mail and the defendant's endorsed receipt is received and entered as a part of the return of process then the affidavit required in subsection (5) of this section need only show that the defendant received personal delivery by mail. However, personal service outside of this state in accordance with the provisions of law relating to personal service of summons outside of this state shall relieve the plaintiff from mailing a copy of the summons or process by registered mail as provided in this section.
(7) The secretary of state shall, within eight business days, send one of such copies provided under subsection (4) of this section by mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the defendant at the defendant's address, if known to the secretary of state.
(8) The court in which the action is brought may order such continuances as may be necessary to afford the defendant reasonable opportunity to defend the action.
(9) The fee paid by the plaintiff to the secretary of state shall be taxed as part of the plaintiff's costs if the plaintiff prevails in the action.
(10) The secretary of state shall keep a record of all such summons and processes, which shall show the day of service.
[ 2025 c 40 s 3; 2003 c 223 s 1; 1993 c 269 s 16; 1982 c 35 s 197; 1973 c 91 s 1; 1971 ex.s. c 69 s 1; 1961 c 12 s 46.64.040. Prior: 1959 c 121 s 1; 1957 c 75 s 1; 1937 c 189 s 129; RRS s 6360-129.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Cf. CR 12(a).
Effective date—1993 c 269: See note following RCW 23.86.070.
Intent—Severability—Effective dates—Application—1982 c 35: See notes following RCW 43.07.160.
Deposit of fees in secretary of state's revolving fund: RCW 43.07.130.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1960–2023 · leading case: Martin v. Meier, 760 P.2d 925 (Wash. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Martin v. Meier, 760 P.2d 925 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 26× “040, the nonresident motorist statute, where the plaintiff has with due diligence attempted to find and serve defendant and where plaintiff has a good faith basis to believe the defendant has departed the state. We answer yes, and conclude that the plaintiff in this case has…”
Martin v. Triol, 847 P.2d 471 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 28× “5 Unable to locate the Triols, they served process on the Washington Secretary of State on July 24, 1990, pursuant to RCW 46.64.040. 6 Petitioners Triol traveled out of state on several occasions during the 3-year period following the accident, although Respondents did not…”
Harvey v. Obermeit, 261 P.3d 671 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 19× “After the issue of service of process was raised in Obermeit’s motion to dismiss and Harvey’s motion for partial summary judgment to strike certain affirmative defenses, the trial court held a fact-finding hearing and concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Harvey did not…”
Corinn James & Ian James v. Casey Mcmurry, 380 P.3d 591 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 34× “¶1 Corinn and Ian James appeal the trial court’s dismissal of their lawsuit against Casey McMurry and his wife (McMurry) on grounds that they failed to comply with the requirements of RCW 46.64.040, the statute allowing for service on a motorist defendant via the secretary of…”
Huff v. Budbill, 1 P.3d 1138 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 17× “2d 925 (1988), to the effect that a plaintiff must have a reasonable basis for believing a defendant has departed the state before utilizing the procedures set forth in RCW 46.64.040 as a means of effectuating substitute service of process, is still applicable.”
Keithly v. Sanders, 285 P.3d 225 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 23× “He argues that he complied with the requirements of RCW 46.64.040, the nonresident motorist act, before expiration of the statute of limitations.”
Heinzig v. Seok Hwang, 354 P.3d 943 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 12× “Following a motor vehicle collision with Seok Hwang, Mark Heinzig commenced a lawsuit against Hwang and, subsequently, sought to accomplish substituted service of process pursuant to Washington’s nonresident motorist act, RCW 46.64.040. Heinzig failed, though, to strictly comply…”
Larson v. Kyungsik Yoon, 351 P.3d 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 16× “¶1 We granted discretionary review to decide the question of whether jurisdiction over a Korean resident could be obtained through use of the methods of service of process allowed for in Washington’s nonresident motorist act, RCW 46.64.040. We answer in the negative.”
Carras v. Johnson, 892 P.2d 780 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 12× “The dispositive issue is whether Carras' efforts to serve Johnson and the Walkers satisfied the due diligence requirement of the substituted service statute, RCW 46.64.040, as a matter of law. We conclude that he did and reverse.”
Patrick v. DeYoung, 724 P.2d 1064 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 7× “Even if we assume that her absence from the state of Washington occurred before October 5, 1982, the tolling provisions of RCW 4.”
Brown v. Pro West Transp. Ltd., 886 P.2d 223 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 7× “On December 18, 1992, Brown attempted service on ProWest, Santana, O’Neill, and Clark by filing a summons and complaint through the Secretary of State’s office pursuant to the nonresident motorist statute, RCW 46.64.040. With the exception of ProWest, the statutory avenue of…”
Arthur Davis, App. v. Laura Blumenstein & Jean Doe Blumenstein, Res., 432 P.3d 1251 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 20× “Arthur Davis appeals the decision to dismiss his lawsuit against Laura Blumenstein on the grounds that he did not comply with the statutory requirement to provide notice of service on the secretary of state by filing an affidavit certifying "plaintiff's attorney.”
Show all 68 citing cases →
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.