Wash. Rev. Code » Title 48 · Chapter 48.22
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 48.22.085 (2026)

Automobile liability insurance policy—Optional coverage for personal injury protection—Rejection by insured

✓ 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 new automobile liability insurance policy or renewal of such an existing policy may be issued unless personal injury protection coverage is offered as an optional coverage.
(2) A named insured may reject, in writing, personal injury protection coverage and the requirements of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply. If a named insured rejects personal injury protection coverage:
(a) That rejection is valid and binding as to all levels of coverage and on all persons who might have otherwise been insured under such coverage; and
(b) The insurer is not required to include personal injury protection coverage in any supplemental, renewal, or replacement policy unless a named insured subsequently requests such coverage in writing.
(3) The coverage under this section may be excluded as provided for under *RCW 48.177.010(6).
[ 2015 c 236 s 8; 2003 c 115 s 2; 1993 c 242 s 2.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: RCW 48.177.010 was recodified as RCW 46.72B.180 pursuant to 2022 c 281 s 35.
Severability—Effective date—1993 c 242: See notes following RCW 48.22.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: Durant v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 419 P.3d 400 (Wash. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Durant v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 419 P.3d 400 (Wash. 2018). “Washington statutes mandate that insurers writing automobile insurance offer PIP coverage, which includes coverage for payment of "all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred .”
Sherry v. Fin. Indem. Co., 160 P.3d 31 (Wash. 2007). “See generally RCW 48.22.085. Counsel for FIC during oral argument did reject the suggestion that FIC would pursue reimbursement of PIP payments under those facts.”
Sherry v. Fin. Indem. Co., 160 Wash. 2d 611 (Wash. 2007). “See generally RCW 48.22.085. Counsel for FIC during oral argument did reject the suggestion that FIC would pursue reimbursement of PIP payments under those facts.”
Hamm v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 151 Wash. 2d 303 (Wash. 2004). “Finally, State Farm quotes language the legislature omitted from the 1993 PIP statute, RCW 48.22.085, that would have specifically required the type of PIP pro rata sharing of legal expenses later required in Mahler and Winters.”
Hamm v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 88 P.3d 395 (Wash. 2004). “Whatever the relevance of the legislature's unknown intent in omitting this language (State Farm does not cite any legislative history explaining why the quoted language was omitted), both Mahler and Winters were decided after the effective date of the PIP statute.”
Wood v. Mut. of Enumclaw Ins., 986 P.2d 833 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “Wood asserts that the state of the law is different since RCW 48.22.085 required insurers to offer PIP benefits for all new policies and renewals after July 1, 1994.”
Albee v. Farmers Ins., 967 P.2d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “Albee asserts that the cooperation clause is not authorized by RCW 48.22.085(1). 17 That is true, but that also is not enough to show a violation of public policy.”
Albee v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 967 P.2d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “Albee asserts that the cooperation clause is not authorized by RCW 48.22.085(1). [17] That is true, but that also is not enough to show a violation of public policy.”
Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Madrigal de Mendoza (E.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 8× “21-7 at 2–3; Wash. Rev. Code § 48.22.085 (1) (“Insurers providing 19 automobile insurance policies must offer minimum personal injury protection 20 coverage for each insured.”
Ephrata Trucking Llc, Respondent/cr-appellants V. Phillip Traulsen, Appellant/cr-respondents (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 6× “005(9) defines “named insured” to mean “the individual named in the declarations of the policy and includes his or her spouse if a resident of the same household.”
Peoples v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n (Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “WAC 284-30-330(4). These regulations also make it an unfair practice to deny, limit, or terminate PIP benefits for any reason other than that the medical bills "(a)[a]re not reasonable;(b)[a]re not necessary;(c)[a]re not related to the accident; or(d)[a]re not incurred within…”
Robertson v. Dorn (E.D. Wash. 2021). · cites it 2× “12 at 9 1 (citing RCW 48.22.085). Certas asserts that since the automobile that collided with 2 Plaintiff, was neither registered in Washington nor “principally garaged” in 3 Washington, there is no open question as to whether Certas was required to provide 4 Plaintiff with…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.22.085(1) — 4 cases
Albee v. Farmers Ins., 967 P.2d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “Albee asserts that the cooperation clause is not authorized by RCW 48.22.085(1). 17 That is true, but that also is not enough to show a violation of public policy.”
Albee v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 967 P.2d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “Albee asserts that the cooperation clause is not authorized by RCW 48.22.085(1). [17] That is true, but that also is not enough to show a violation of public policy.”
Ephrata Trucking Llc, Respondent/cr-appellants V. Phillip Traulsen, Appellant/cr-respondents (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “005(9) defines “named insured” to mean “the individual named in the declarations of the policy and includes his or her spouse if a resident of the same household.”
Peoples v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n (Wash. 2019). “WAC 284-30-330(4). These regulations also make it an unfair practice to deny, limit, or terminate PIP benefits for any reason other than that the medical bills "(a)[a]re not reasonable;(b)[a]re not necessary;(c)[a]re not related to the accident; or(d)[a]re not incurred within…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.22.085(2) — 2 cases
Ephrata Trucking Llc, Respondent/cr-appellants V. Phillip Traulsen, Appellant/cr-respondents (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “005(9) defines “named insured” to mean “the individual named in the declarations of the policy and includes his or her spouse if a resident of the same household.”
Quintana v. USAA Life Ins. Co. (W.D. Wash. 2020).
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.