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

Wash. Rev. Code § 48.22.095 (2026)

Automobile insurance policies—Minimum personal injury protection coverage

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Insurers providing automobile insurance policies must offer minimum personal injury protection coverage for each insured with benefit limits as follows:
(a) Medical and hospital benefits of ten thousand dollars;
(b) A funeral expense benefit of two thousand dollars;
(c) Income continuation benefits of ten thousand dollars, subject to a limit of two hundred dollars per week; and
(d) Loss of services benefits of five thousand dollars, subject to a limit of two hundred dollars per week.
(2) The coverage under this section may be excluded as provided for under *RCW 48.177.010(6).
[ 2015 c 236 s 9; 2003 c 115 s 4; 1993 c 242 s 4.]

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 14 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2003–2024 · leading case: McLaughlin v. Travelers Com. Ins. Co., 476 P.3d 1032 (Wash. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McLaughlin v. Travelers Com. Ins. Co., 476 P.3d 1032 (Wash. 2020). “See RCW 48.22.095(1)(a). 2 No. 97652-0 FACTS McLaughlin was riding his bicycle near downtown Seattle when a motorist opened the door of his parked vehicle and hit McLaughlin.”
Boag v. Farmers Ins., 117 Wash. App. 116 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “Contract and Statutory Interpretation Boag first contends that the policy language directly conflicts with the specific language of RCW 48.22.095, a provision that controls benefit limits for personal injury protection coverage and, thus, is not enforceable.”
Boag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 69 P.3d 370 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “[2] She claims that Farmers' policy does not adequately include the terms RCW 48.22.095(3) requires.”
Folweiler Chiropractic, Ps v. Am. Fam. Ins. Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “005(7) and RCW 48.22.095, and the regulations defining unfair claims settlement practices in WAC 284-30-330.”
Schiff v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Wash. 2024). · cites it 4× “The court noted that RCW 48.22.095(1)(a) and RCW 48.22.005(7) require “an individualized assessment rather than substituting a formulaic approach that pays only 80 percent of the average charge for a large geographic area.”
Schiff v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Wash. 2024). · cites it 4× “The court noted that RCW 48.22.095(1)(a) and RCW 48.22.005(7) require “an individualized assessment rather than substituting a formulaic approach that pays only 80 percent of the average charge for a large geographic area.”
Ephrata Trucking Llc, Respondent/cr-appellants V. Phillip Traulsen, Appellant/cr-respondents (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “Phillip’s Direct Claims for PIP Benefits Finally, Phillip argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his direct, first- party claims for PIP coverage. We disagree. RCW 48.22.085(1) provides that “[n]o new automobile liability insurance policy or renewal of such an existing…”
Eastside Pt, Inc. & Summit Pt, Llc v. U.s. Auto. Ass'n & Usaa (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “This court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of that claim on CR 12(b)(6): On their face, RCW48.22.095(1)(a) and RCW48.22.005(7) require payment of “all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of the insured.”
Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Madrigal de Mendoza (E.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “21-7 at 2–3; Wash. Rev. Code § 48.22.095 (1) (“Insurers 11 providing automobile insurance policies must offer minimum personal injury 12 protection coverage for each insured.”
Chan Healthcare Grp. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “1 RCW 48.22.095(1), .005(7). 2 WAC 284-30-330(4).”
Chan Healthcare Grp. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Wash. 2018). “Facts Chan sued Liberty for failing to pay its reasonable bills as required by our casualty insurance statutes, RCW 48.22.095,.005(7), and engaging in an unfair practice under Washington's Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.”
Joseph M. Thompson v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 438 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “090, RCW 48.22.095, and RCW 48.22.100. The reviser created a new code section and inserted verbatim section 1 of the House Bill 1233 into RCW 48.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.22.095(1) — 1 case
Chan Healthcare Grp. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “1 RCW 48.22.095(1), .005(7). 2 WAC 284-30-330(4).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.22.095(1)(a) — 5 cases
McLaughlin v. Travelers Com. Ins. Co., 476 P.3d 1032 (Wash. 2020). “See RCW 48.22.095(1)(a). 2 No. 97652-0 FACTS McLaughlin was riding his bicycle near downtown Seattle when a motorist opened the door of his parked vehicle and hit McLaughlin.”
Schiff v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Wash. 2024). “The court noted that RCW 48.22.095(1)(a) and RCW 48.22.005(7) require “an individualized assessment rather than substituting a formulaic approach that pays only 80 percent of the average charge for a large geographic area.”
Schiff v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Wash. 2024). “The court noted that RCW 48.22.095(1)(a) and RCW 48.22.005(7) require “an individualized assessment rather than substituting a formulaic approach that pays only 80 percent of the average charge for a large geographic area.”
Folweiler Chiropractic, Ps v. Am. Fam. Ins. Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “005(7) and RCW 48.22.095, and the regulations defining unfair claims settlement practices in WAC 284-30-330.”
Eastside Pt, Inc. & Summit Pt, Llc v. U.s. Auto. Ass'n & Usaa (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “This court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of that claim on CR 12(b)(6): On their face, RCW48.22.095(1)(a) and RCW48.22.005(7) require payment of “all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of the insured.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.22.095(3) — 2 cases
Boag v. Farmers Ins., 117 Wash. App. 116 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Contract and Statutory Interpretation Boag first contends that the policy language directly conflicts with the specific language of RCW 48.22.095, a provision that controls benefit limits for personal injury protection coverage and, thus, is not enforceable.”
Boag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 69 P.3d 370 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “[2] She claims that Farmers' policy does not adequately include the terms RCW 48.22.095(3) requires.”
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.