Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 48.05.370 (2026)

Fiduciary relationship to insurer of officers, directors or corporation holding controlling interest

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Officers and directors of an insurer or a corporation holding a controlling interest in an insurer shall be deemed to stand in a fiduciary relation to the insurer, and shall discharge the duties of their respective positions in good faith, and with that diligence, care and skill which ordinary prudent persons would exercise under similar circumstances in like positions.

[ 2009 c 549 s 7020; 1969 ex.s. c 241 s 1.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Senn v. Nw. Underwriters, Inc., 875 P.2d 637 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Senn v. Nw. Underwriters, Inc., 875 P.2d 637 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “That statute provides: Officers and directors of an insurer or a corporation holding a controlling interest in an insurer shall be deemed to stand in a fiduciary relation to the insurer, and shall discharge the duties of their respective positions in good faith, and with that…”

Annechino v. Worthy, 252 P.3d 415 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Division One of this court held that the secretary clearly owed a fiduciary duty to the company under RCW 48.05.370, [3] and that her failure to discover the president's conversion of over $12 million in insurance premium payments was a breach of that duty.”

Annechino v. Worthy, 162 Wash. App. 138 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Division One of this court held that the secretary clearly owed a fiduciary duty to the company *147 under RCW 48.05.370, 3 and that her failure to discover the president’s conversion of over $12 million in insurance premium payments was a breach of that duty.”

Herrmann v. Cissna, 507 P.2d 144 (Wash. 1973). “The judgments of dismissal based upon the running of the statute of limitations are reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings accordingly.”

Joe W. Trimm Et Ano, V. Starbucks Corp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “(quoting RCW 48.05.370). Here, plaintiff’s claims are based on a distinct statute governing derivative suits.”

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.