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

Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.110 (2026)

Grounds for disapproval

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The commissioner shall disapprove any such form of policy, application, rider, or endorsement, or withdraw any previous approval thereof, only:
(a) If it is in any respect in violation of or does not comply with this code or any applicable order or regulation of the commissioner issued pursuant to the code; or
(b) If it does not comply with any controlling filing theretofore made and approved; or
(c) If it contains or incorporates by reference any inconsistent, ambiguous or misleading clauses, or exceptions and conditions which unreasonably or deceptively affect the risk purported to be assumed in the general coverage of the contract; or
(d) If it has any title, heading, or other indication of its provisions which is misleading; or
(e) If purchase of insurance thereunder is being solicited by deceptive advertising.
(2) In addition to the grounds for disapproval of any such form as provided in subsection (1) of this section, the commissioner may disapprove any form of disability insurance policy if the benefits provided therein are unreasonable in relation to the premium charged. Rates, or any modification of rates effective on or after July 1, 2008, for individual health benefit plans may not be used until sixty days after they are filed with the commissioner. If the commissioner does not disapprove a rate filing within sixty days after the insurer has filed the documents required in RCW 48.20.025(2) and any rules adopted pursuant thereto, the filing shall be deemed approved.
[ 2008 c 303 s 1; 2000 c 79 s 2; 1985 c 264 s 9; 1982 c 181 s 9; 1947 c 79 s .18.11; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 45.18.11.]

Notes:

Effective date—Severability—2000 c 79: See notes following RCW 48.04.010.
Severability—1982 c 181: See note following RCW 48.03.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2021 · leading case: Progressive Cas. Ins. v. Jester, 683 P.2d 180 (Wash. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Progressive Cas. Ins. v. Jester, 683 P.2d 180 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “To the contrary, I expect the use of these forms to resume as soon as the majority opinion is filed. In sum, I would hold this clause unenforceable.”
Omega Nat'l Ins. v. Marquardt, 799 P.2d 235 (Wash. 1990). “The companies next argue that other provisions of the code, specifically RCW 48.18.110(2) (regarding disability), RCW 48.”
Credit Gen. Ins. v. Zewdu, 919 P.2d 93 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “The title should describe what the form does, or it is misleading — in violation of RCW 48.18.110(l)(d).” Credit General did not appeal the analyst’s disapproval to the commissioner.”
Leo J. Driscoll v. Washington State Ins. Comm'r (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Comm 'r RCW 48.18.110(1) directing the insurer to cease use of and withdraw the changed Policy Schedule forms and granting other prospective relief.”
IN RE: Sr. Health Ins. Co. of PA In Rehab. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2021). “” Wash. Rev. Code §48.18.110 . These standards are similar to the Pennsylvania standard for adjusting long-term care insurance premium rates.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.110(1) — 1 case
Leo J. Driscoll v. Washington State Ins. Comm'r (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Comm 'r RCW 48.18.110(1) directing the insurer to cease use of and withdraw the changed Policy Schedule forms and granting other prospective relief.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.110(2) — 1 case
Omega Nat'l Ins. v. Marquardt, 799 P.2d 235 (Wash. 1990). “The companies next argue that other provisions of the code, specifically RCW 48.18.110(2) (regarding disability), RCW 48.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.110(l)(d) — 1 case
Credit Gen. Ins. v. Zewdu, 919 P.2d 93 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “The title should describe what the form does, or it is misleading — in violation of RCW 48.18.110(l)(d).” Credit General did not appeal the analyst’s disapproval to the commissioner.”
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.