Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 48.19.310 (2026)
Complaints of insureds
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Every rating organization and every insurer which makes its own rates shall provide within this state reasonable means whereby any person aggrieved by the application of its rating system may be heard, in person or by his or her authorized representative, on his or her written request to review the manner in which such rating system has been applied in connection with the insurance afforded him or her. If the rating organization or insurer fails to grant or reject such request within thirty days after it is made, the applicant may proceed in the same manner as if his or her application had been rejected. Any party affected by the action of such rating organization or such insurer on such request may, within thirty days after written notice of such action, appeal to the commissioner, who, after a hearing held upon notice to the appellant and to the rating organization or insurer, may affirm or reverse such action.
[ 2009 c 549 s 7089; 1947 c 79 s .19.31; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 45.19.31.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2022 · leading case: Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1001 v. Washington Surveying & Rating Bureau, 558 P.2d 215 (Wash. 1976).
Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1001 v. Washington Surveying & Rating Bureau, 558 P.2d 215 (Wash. 1976). “The statute provides for complaint directly to the rating organization, [6] and for a subsequent hearing and action by the Insurance Commissioner either affirming or reversing the action of the rating organization.”
Blaylock v. First Am. Title Ins., 504 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (W.D. Wash. 2007). “§ 48.19.310. *1096 Any party affected by the action of the insurer upon such a request can appeal the insurer’s decision to the Commissioner for further review.”
Epstein v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co. (W.D. Wash. 2022). “See RCW 48.19.310. The 4 Court is not convinced by the AG’s letter or any additional arguments Epstein advances that 5 there exists a carve-out to the filed rate doctrine for WLAD claims.”
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.