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

Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.260 (2026)

Delivery of policy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Subject to the insurer's requirements as to payment of premium, every policy shall be delivered to the insured or to the person entitled thereto within a reasonable period of time after its issuance.
(2) In event the original policy is delivered or is so required to be delivered to or for deposit with any vendor, mortgagee, or pledgee of any motor vehicle or aircraft, and in which policy any interest of the vendee, mortgagor, or pledgor in or with reference to such vehicle or aircraft is insured, a duplicate of such policy, or memorandum thereof setting forth the type of coverage, limits of liability, premiums for the respective coverages, and duration of the policy, shall be delivered by the vendor, mortgagee, or pledgee to each such vendee, mortgagor, or pledgor named in the policy or coming within the group of persons designated in the policy to be so included. If the policy does not provide coverage of legal liability for injury to persons or damage to the property of third parties, a conspicuous statement of such fact shall be printed, written, or stamped on the face of such duplicate policy or memorandum.
[1947 c 79 s .18.26; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 45.18.26.]

Notes:

Vehicle seller must furnish buyer itemized statement of insurance and other charges: RCW 46.70.130.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1968–2017 · leading case: Prest v. Am. Bankers Life Assurance Co., 900 P.2d 595 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Prest v. Am. Bankers Life Assurance Co., 900 P.2d 595 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “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 was attached to or otherwise made a part of…”
Rizzuti v. Basin Travel Serv. of Othello, Inc., 105 P.3d 1012 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “2d 568 (1968) and RCW 48.18.260, they argued that the memorandum of insurance constituted the entire insurance contract because it was the only document delivered to the insured.”
Mullen v. North Pac. Bank, 610 P.2d 949 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “15 By its very nature, a VSI policy insures only the interest of the lender. Since defendant was under no duty to insure plaintiff's interest in the vehicle and the insurance it did procure did not insure plaintiff's interest, we hold that defendant violated no duty to plaintiff…”
Rizzuti v. Basin Travel Serv. of Othello, Inc., 125 Wash. App. 602 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “2d 568 (1968) and RCW 48.18.260, they argued that the memorandum of insurance constituted the entire insurance contract because it was the only document delivered to the insured.”
David Jackson v. Esurance Ins. Co., 412 P.3d 299 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Jackson does not dispute that the 2010 policy change, if enforceable, would exclude coverage for his loss.”
Safeco Ins. v. Dairyland Mut. Ins., 446 P.2d 568 (Wash. 1968). “Viola Benson within the approximate 2-month period between the time the policy was ordered and the time the accident occurred was the “loss payee copy” contract. The court then rightfully concluded that it constituted her insurance contract with Dairyland Mutual.”
Wheeler v. Rocky Mountain Fire & Cas. Co., 103 P.3d 240 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “” Nothing here indicates that 18 days is not a “reasonable amount of time” for purposes of RCW 48.18.260. Wheeler’s argument fails. ¶16 Wheeler finally contends that “public policy militates toward coverage.”
Wheeler v. Rocky Mountain Fire & Cas. Co., 103 P.3d 240 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Wheeler also argues that RCW 48.18.260 requires "every policy... be delivered to the insured or to the person entitled thereto within a reasonable period of time after its issuance.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.260(1) — 3 cases
Prest v. Am. Bankers Life Assurance Co., 900 P.2d 595 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “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 was attached to or otherwise made a part of…”
David Jackson v. Esurance Ins. Co., 412 P.3d 299 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Jackson does not dispute that the 2010 policy change, if enforceable, would exclude coverage for his loss.”
Wheeler v. Rocky Mountain Fire & Cas. Co., 103 P.3d 240 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “” Nothing here indicates that 18 days is not a “reasonable amount of time” for purposes of RCW 48.18.260. Wheeler’s argument fails. ¶16 Wheeler finally contends that “public policy militates toward coverage.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.260(2) — 1 case
Mullen v. North Pac. Bank, 610 P.2d 949 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “15 By its very nature, a VSI policy insures only the interest of the lender. Since defendant was under no duty to insure plaintiff's interest in the vehicle and the insurance it did procure did not insure plaintiff's interest, we hold that defendant violated no duty to plaintiff…”
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.