Wash. Rev. Code » Title 48 · Chapter 48.15
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 48.15.150 (2026)

Legal process against surplus line insurer

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) For any cause of action arising in this state under any contract issued as a surplus line contract under this chapter, an unauthorized insurer must be sued in the superior court of the county in which the cause of action arose.
(2) An unauthorized insurer issuing a policy under this chapter has authorized service of process against it in the manner prescribed under RCW 48.02.200. Any policy must contain a provision designating the commissioner as the person upon whom service of process may be made.
(3) The insurer has forty days from the date of the service upon the commissioner within which to plead, answer, or otherwise defend the action. Upon service of process upon the commissioner in accordance with this section, the court has jurisdiction in personam of the insurer.
[ 2011 c 47 s 9; 1979 ex.s. c 199 s 4; 1963 c 195 s 16; 1955 c 303 s 8; 1947 c 79 s .15.15; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 45.15.15.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2024 · leading case: Dep't of Transp. v. James River Ins., 292 P.3d 118 (Wash. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dep't of Transp. v. James River Ins., 292 P.3d 118 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 7× “200 and RCW 48.15.150. The trial court further held that these statutes were not preempted by the FAA based on “reverse preemption” under the McCarranFerguson Act, 15 U.”
Certif. From US for Ninth Cir. v. Kachman, 198 P.3d 505 (Wash. 2008). “485; RCW 48.15.150(2); RCW 48.30.010(5); RCW 48.”
Cornhusker Cas. Ins. v. Kachman, 165 Wash. 2d 404 (Wash. 2008). “485; RCW 48.15.150(2); RCW 48.30.010(5); RCW 48.”
Apex Energy Solutions of Seattle LLC v. Foit (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 2× “, the Eastern District of Washington was 25 faced with a similar question involving RCW 48.15.150(1), a statute which utilized even 26 stricter language in terms of venue than RCW 6.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.15.150(1) — 2 cases
Dep't of Transp. v. James River Ins., 292 P.3d 118 (Wash. 2013). “200 and RCW 48.15.150. The trial court further held that these statutes were not preempted by the FAA based on “reverse preemption” under the McCarranFerguson Act, 15 U.”
Apex Energy Solutions of Seattle LLC v. Foit (W.D. Wash. 2024). “, the Eastern District of Washington was 25 faced with a similar question involving RCW 48.15.150(1), a statute which utilized even 26 stricter language in terms of venue than RCW 6.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.15.150(2) — 2 cases
Certif. From US for Ninth Cir. v. Kachman, 198 P.3d 505 (Wash. 2008). “485; RCW 48.15.150(2); RCW 48.30.010(5); RCW 48.”
Cornhusker Cas. Ins. v. Kachman, 165 Wash. 2d 404 (Wash. 2008). “485; RCW 48.15.150(2); RCW 48.30.010(5); 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.