Wash. Rev. Code » Title 48 · Chapter 48.18
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.080 (2026)

Application as evidence

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) No application for the issuance of any insurance policy or contract shall be admissible in evidence in any action relative to such policy or contract, unless a true copy of the application was attached to or otherwise made a part of the policy when issued and delivered. This provision shall not apply to policies or contracts of industrial life insurance.
(2) If any policy of life or disability insurance delivered in this state is reinstated or renewed, and the insured or the beneficiary or assignee of the policy makes written request to the insurer for a copy of the application, if any, for such reinstatement or renewal, the insurer shall, within fifteen days after receipt of such request at its home office or at any of its branch offices, deliver or mail to the person making such request, a copy of such application. If such copy is not so delivered or mailed, the insurer shall be precluded from introducing the application as evidence in any action or proceeding based upon or involving the policy or its reinstatement or renewal.
[1947 c 79 s .18.08; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 45.18.08.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1972–2014 · leading case: Queen City Farms, Inc. v. Cent. Nat'l Ins. Co. of Omaha, 882 P.2d 703 (Wash. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Queen City Farms, Inc. v. Cent. Nat'l Ins. Co. of Omaha, 882 P.2d 703 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 10× “Also unpersuasive is Queen City's contention that RCW 48.18.080 required the trial court to exclude from evidence the correspondence preceding Lloyd's issuance of the insurance policy.”
Cutter & Buck, Inc. v. Genesis Ins., 306 F. Supp. 2d 988 (W.D. Wash. 2004). · cites it 9× “Therefore, RCW 48.18.080 barred its admissibility as evidence.”
Karpenski v. Am. Gen. Life Companies, LLC, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (W.D. Wash. 2014). · cites it 4× “Specifically, Plaintiff contends that: (1) the Court already ruled that Washington rescission law is the law of the case, (2) it is manifest error to apply Virginia law to any or all claims, and (3) the Court manifestly erred in not ruling on the applicability of RCW 48.18.080.…”
Karpenski v. Am. Gen. Life Companies, LLC, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (W.D. Wash. 2014). · cites it 4× “The attachment requirement of RCW 48.18.080 applies in instances where the actual insurance policy was provided to the insured.”
Prest v. Am. Bankers Life Assurance Co., 900 P.2d 595 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Prest relies upon the provisions of RCW 48.18.080(1) and RCW 48.18.260(1), which provide: No application for the issuance of any insurance policy or contract shall be admissible in evidence in any action relative to such policy or contract, unless a true copy of the application…”
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Hebert Constr., Inc., 450 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (W.D. Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “Here, there is no dispute which policy was in effect and, therefore, the limited exception to RCW 48.18.080 in Fraser is inapplicable. 7 .”
Uslife Credit Life Ins. v. McAfee, 630 P.2d 450 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “Others provide, for example, that insurance applications cannot be admitted in evidence unless attached to the policies so the insured will be sure to see them, RCW 48.18.080, and that no representation by an insured will defeat coverage under a policy unless the representation…”
Tornetta v. Allstate Ins., 973 P.2d 8 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “RCW 48.18.080(1) provides that an application for an insurance policy is inadmissible unless a copy of the application was attached to the policy when issued and delivered.”
Espinoza v. Am. Com. Ins., 336 P.3d 115 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “¶15 The Espinozas moved to exclude as evidence at trial their insurance policy application because ACIC failed to attach the application to the policy as required under RCW 48.18.080. On December 21, 2012, the court granted the Espinozas’ request to exclude the physical…”
Lundmark v. Mut. of Omaha Ins., 498 P.2d 867 (Wash. 1972). “Upon the trial, the court excluded from evidence the application and interoffice memorandum which exclusion was based upon RCW 48.18.080, which reads in part: (1) No application for the issuance of any insurance policy or contract shall be admissible in evidence in any action…”
Gabriel Espinoza, et ux v. Am. Com. Ins. Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “The Espinozas moved to exclude as evidence at trial their insurance policy application because ACIC failed to attach the application to the policy as required under RCW 48.18.080. On December 21, 2012, the court granted the Espinozas' request to exclude the physical application…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.080(1) — 5 cases
Cutter & Buck, Inc. v. Genesis Ins., 306 F. Supp. 2d 988 (W.D. Wash. 2004). “Therefore, RCW 48.18.080 barred its admissibility as evidence.”
Karpenski v. Am. Gen. Life Companies, LLC, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (W.D. Wash. 2014). “The attachment requirement of RCW 48.18.080 applies in instances where the actual insurance policy was provided to the insured.”
Prest v. Am. Bankers Life Assurance Co., 900 P.2d 595 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “Prest relies upon the provisions of RCW 48.18.080(1) and RCW 48.18.260(1), which provide: No application for the issuance of any insurance policy or contract shall be admissible in evidence in any action relative to such policy or contract, unless a true copy of the application…”
Tornetta v. Allstate Ins., 973 P.2d 8 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “RCW 48.18.080(1) provides that an application for an insurance policy is inadmissible unless a copy of the application was attached to the policy when issued and delivered.”
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Hebert Constr., Inc., 450 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (W.D. Wash. 2006). “Here, there is no dispute which policy was in effect and, therefore, the limited exception to RCW 48.18.080 in Fraser is inapplicable. 7 .”
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.