Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.290 (2026)

Cancellation by 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) Cancellation by the insurer of any policy which by its terms is cancellable at the option of the insurer, or of any binder based on such policy which does not contain a clearly stated expiration date, may be effected as to any interest only upon compliance with the following:

(a) For all insurance policies other than medical malpractice insurance policies or fire insurance policies canceled under RCW 48.53.040:

(i) The insurer must deliver or mail written notice of cancellation to the named insured at least 60 days before the effective date of the cancellation; and

(ii) The cancellation notice must include the insurer's actual reason for canceling the policy.

(b) For medical malpractice insurance policies:

(i) The insurer must deliver or mail written notice of the cancellation to the named insured at least 90 days before the effective date of the cancellation; and

(ii) The cancellation notice must include the insurer's actual reason for canceling the policy and describe the significant risk factors that led to the insurer's underwriting action, as defined under RCW 48.18.547(1)(e).

(c) If an insurer cancels a policy described under (a) or (b) of this subsection for nonpayment of premium, the insurer must deliver or mail the cancellation notice to the named insured at least 10 days before the effective date of the cancellation.

(d) If an insurer cancels a fire insurance policy under RCW 48.53.040, the insurer must deliver or mail the cancellation notice to the named insured at least five days before the effective date of the cancellation.

(e) Like notice must also be so delivered or mailed to each mortgagee, pledgee, or other person shown by the policy to have an interest in any loss which may occur thereunder. For purposes of this subsection (1)(e), "delivered" includes electronic transmittal, facsimile, or personal delivery.

(2) The mailing of any such notice shall be effected by depositing it in a sealed envelope, directed to the addressee at his or her last address as known to the insurer or as shown by the insurer's records, with proper prepaid postage affixed, in a letter depository of the United States post office. The insurer shall retain in its records any such item so mailed, together with its envelope, which was returned by the post office upon failure to find, or deliver the mailing to, the addressee.

(3) The affidavit of the individual making or supervising such a mailing, shall constitute prima facie evidence of such facts of the mailing as are therein affirmed.

(4) The portion of any premium paid to the insurer on account of the policy, unearned because of the cancellation and in amount as computed on the pro rata basis, must be actually paid to the insured or other person entitled thereto as shown by the policy or by any endorsement thereon, or be mailed to the insured or such person as soon as possible, and no later than 45 days after the date of notice of cancellation to the insured for homeowners', dwelling fire, and private passenger auto. Any such payment may be made by cash, or by check, bank draft, or money order.

(5) This section shall not apply to contracts of life or disability insurance without provision for cancellation prior to the date to which premiums have been paid, or to contracts of insurance procured under the provisions of chapter 48.15 RCW.

[ 2024 c 244 s 1; 2006 c 8 s 212; 1997 c 85 s 1; 1988 c 249 s 2; 1986 c 287 s 1; 1985 c 264 s 17; 1982 c 110 s 7; 1980 c 102 s 7; 1979 ex.s. c 199 s 5; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 119 s 2; 1947 c 79 s .18.29; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 45.18.29.]

Notes:

Application—2024 c 244: "Sections 1 and 2 of this act apply to all affected policies issued or renewed on or after July 1, 2025." [ 2024 c 244 s 3.]

Effective date—2024 c 244: "Sections 1 through 3 of this act take effect July 1, 2025." [ 2024 c 244 s 4.]

Application—2006 c 8 ss 211-213: See note following RCW 48.18.547.

Findings—Intent—Part headings and subheadings not law—Severability—2006 c 8: See notes following RCW 5.64.010.

Effective date—1988 c 249: See note following RCW 48.18.289.

Application—1985 c 264 ss 17-22: "Sections 17 through 22 of this act apply to all new or renewal policies issued or renewed after May 10, 1985. Sections 17 through 22 of this act shall not apply to or affect the validity of any notice of cancellation mailed or delivered prior to May 10, 1985. Sections 17 through 22 of this act shall not be construed to affect cancellation of a renewal policy, if notice of cancellation is mailed or delivered within forty-five days after May 10, 1985. Sections 17 through 22 of this act shall not be construed to require notice, other than that already required, of intention not to renew any policy which expires less than forty-five days after May 10, 1985." [ 1985 c 264 s 24.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1960–2023 · leading case: Cornhusker Cas. Ins. v. Kachman, 514 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cornhusker Cas. Ins. v. Kachman, 514 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 27× “290 (1997) (“RCW § 48.18.290”) such that a cancellation letter sent via certified mail gives sufficient notice under RCW § 48.”

Certif. From US for Ninth Cir. v. Kachman, 198 P.3d 505 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 20× “¶ 1 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following question to this court: Does sending notice of cancellation by certified mail satisfy the "mailed" requirement of RCW § 48.18.290 (1997) and give sufficient notice of cancellation to comply with RCW § 48.”

Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins. Co., 52 P.3d 494 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 14× “The court held Olivine was entitled to notice of TEPCO's request for cancellation under RCW 48.18.290 [2] and RCW 48.56.110. The court reasoned since all concerned other than Olivine knew of the cancellation, the policy must still be in effect with respect to Olivine.”

Cornhusker Cas. Ins. v. Kachman, 165 Wash. 2d 404 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 18× “¶1 — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following question to this court: Does sending notice of cancellation by certified mail satisfy the “mailed” requirement of RCW § 48.18.290 (1997) and give sufficient notice of cancellation to comply with RCW § 48.”

Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins., 105 Wash. App. 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 13× “In this instance, RCW 48.18.290 imposes the applicable restriction upon the insurer.”

Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins. Co., 19 P.3d 1089 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 13× “In this instance, RCW 48.18.290 imposes the applicable restriction upon the insurer.”

Bailey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 869 P.2d 1110 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 13× “They filed for declaratory judgment to determine coverage.”

Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Paccar, Inc., 634 P.2d 291 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 4× “The policy provided for proration of premiums in the event of cancellation before the March 1 anniversary date, as required by RCW 48.18.290(4). However, the policy did not specify whether the annual retained aggregate limit was to be prorated in the event of cancellation before…”

Isaacson v. DeMartin Agency, Inc., 893 P.2d 1123 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 8× “Claims Against Insurer We determine first whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of American Economy.”

Graham-Bingham Irrevocable Trust v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. USA, 827 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (W.D. Wash. 2011). · cites it 7× “RCW 48.18.290 does not apply to “contracts of life or disability insurance without provision for cancellation prior to the date to which premiums have been paid.”

Saunders v. Lloyd's of London, 779 P.2d 249 (Wash. 1989). “RCW 48.18.290(5) and RCW 48.18.2901, as amended in 1986, exempt surplus line coverage from statutory expiration and renewal requirements.”

Johnson v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 316 P.3d 1054 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “290 states, in pertinent part: (1) Cancellation by the insurer of any policy which by its terms is cancellable at the option of the insurer, or of any binder based on such policy which does not contain a clearly stated expiration date, may be effected as to any interest only…”

Show all 29 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.290(1) — 8 cases

Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins., 105 Wash. App. 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “In this instance, RCW 48.18.290 imposes the applicable restriction upon the insurer.”

Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins. Co., 19 P.3d 1089 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “In this instance, RCW 48.18.290 imposes the applicable restriction upon the insurer.”

Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins. Co., 52 P.3d 494 (Wash. 2002). “The court held Olivine was entitled to notice of TEPCO's request for cancellation under RCW 48.18.290 [2] and RCW 48.56.110. The court reasoned since all concerned other than Olivine knew of the cancellation, the policy must still be in effect with respect to Olivine.”

Isaacson v. DeMartin Agency, Inc., 893 P.2d 1123 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “Claims Against Insurer We determine first whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of American Economy.”

Certif. From US for Ninth Cir. v. Kachman, 198 P.3d 505 (Wash. 2008). “¶ 1 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following question to this court: Does sending notice of cancellation by certified mail satisfy the "mailed" requirement of RCW § 48.18.290 (1997) and give sufficient notice of cancellation to comply with RCW § 48.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.290(1)(a) — 3 cases

Higgins v. Scottsdale Ins., 127 Wash. App. 486 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).

Higgins v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 111 P.3d 893 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.290(1)(a)(i) — 2 cases

Cornhusker Cas. Ins. v. Kachman, 165 Wash. 2d 404 (Wash. 2008). “¶1 — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following question to this court: Does sending notice of cancellation by certified mail satisfy the “mailed” requirement of RCW § 48.18.290 (1997) and give sufficient notice of cancellation to comply with RCW § 48.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.290(1)(b) — 3 cases

Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins. Co., 19 P.3d 1089 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “In this instance, RCW 48.18.290 imposes the applicable restriction upon the insurer.”

Higgins v. Scottsdale Ins., 127 Wash. App. 486 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).

Higgins v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 111 P.3d 893 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.290(1)(c) — 1 case

Joel Johnson v. Safeco Ins. & Mount Vernon Ins. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.290(2) — 5 cases

Cornhusker Cas. Ins. v. Kachman, 514 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008). “290 (1997) (“RCW § 48.18.290”) such that a cancellation letter sent via certified mail gives sufficient notice under RCW § 48.”

Cornhusker Cas. v. Samples (9th Cir. 2008).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.290(3) — 3 cases

Cornhusker Cas. v. Samples (9th Cir. 2008).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.290(4) — 3 cases

Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Paccar, Inc., 634 P.2d 291 (Wash. 1981). “The policy provided for proration of premiums in the event of cancellation before the March 1 anniversary date, as required by RCW 48.18.290(4). However, the policy did not specify whether the annual retained aggregate limit was to be prorated in the event of cancellation before…”

Washington Physicians Serv. v. Marquardt, 838 P.2d 142 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).

Tyler v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins., 491 P.2d 655 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.290(5) — 4 cases

Graham-Bingham Irrevocable Trust v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. USA, 827 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (W.D. Wash. 2011). “RCW 48.18.290 does not apply to “contracts of life or disability insurance without provision for cancellation prior to the date to which premiums have been paid.”

Higgins v. Scottsdale Ins., 127 Wash. App. 486 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).

Higgins v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 111 P.3d 893 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.290(c) — 1 case

GEICO Advantage Ins. Co. v. Dalton (W.D. Wash. 2022).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.290(l)(a) — 1 case

Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins., 147 Wash. 2d 148 (Wash. 2002).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.290(l)(b) — 1 case

Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins., 105 Wash. App. 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “In this instance, RCW 48.18.290 imposes the applicable restriction upon the insurer.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.290(l)(c) — 2 cases

Johnson v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 316 P.3d 1054 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “290 states, in pertinent part: (1) Cancellation by the insurer of any policy which by its terms is cancellable at the option of the insurer, or of any binder based on such policy which does not contain a clearly stated expiration date, may be effected as to any interest only…”

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.