Wash. Rev. Code » Title 48 · Chapter 48.29
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 48.29.140 (2026)

Premium rates—Required filings—Transition date set by rule

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Premium rates for the insuring or guaranteeing of titles shall not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.
(2) Each title insurer shall forthwith file with the commissioner a schedule showing the premium rates to be charged by it. Every addition to or modification of such schedule or of any rate therein contained shall likewise be filed with the commissioner, and no such addition or modification shall be effective until expiration of fifteen days after date of such filing.
(3) The commissioner may order the modification of any premium rate or schedule of premium rates found by him or her after a hearing to be excessive, or inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. No such order shall require retroactive modification.
(4) The commissioner shall by rule set a date, which shall not be earlier than January 1, 2010, by which title insurers must file every manual of rules and rates, rating plan, rate schedule, minimum rate, class rate, and rating rule, and every modification of any of these filings, under RCW 48.29.143 and 48.29.147, rather than under this section.
[ 2008 c 110 s 8; 1947 c 79 s .29.14; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 45.29.14.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2007–2011 · leading case: Blaylock v. First Am. Title Ins., 504 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (W.D. Wash. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Blaylock v. First Am. Title Ins., 504 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (W.D. Wash. 2007). · cites it 5× “Defendants argue that because their rates were submitted to the Commissioner and because they were required to charge only the rates that they filed, RCW § 48.29.140, their act of charging the filed rates cannot be construed to be a violation of the CPA.”
Leslie v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins., 598 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (W.D. Wash. 2009). · cites it 21× “The Court dismissed Plaintiffs Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) per-se claims based on alleged violations of RCW 48.29.140 and WAC 284-30-800, as well as her common law claims for money-had-and-received, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract.”
Hoving v. Lawyers Title Ins., 256 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Mich. 2009). “”); Wash. Rev.Code § 48.29.140(2) (“Each title insurer shall forthwith file with the commissioner a schedule showing the premium rates to be charged by it.”
Graham-Bingham Irrevocable Trust v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. USA, 827 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (W.D. Wash. 2011). “May 1, 2007) (“[plaintiffs attempt to manufacture an implied private right of action under § 48.29.140 has no merit in light of [Pain Diagnostics ]”).”
Kingsberry v. Chicago Title Ins., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (W.D. Wash. 2008). “See RCW 48.29.140. These are well-recognized common-law theories of liability and plaintiffs complaint sets forth a factual basis in support of each claim.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.29.140(1) — 2 cases
Blaylock v. First Am. Title Ins., 504 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (W.D. Wash. 2007). “Defendants argue that because their rates were submitted to the Commissioner and because they were required to charge only the rates that they filed, RCW § 48.29.140, their act of charging the filed rates cannot be construed to be a violation of the CPA.”
Leslie v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins., 598 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (W.D. Wash. 2009). “The Court dismissed Plaintiffs Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) per-se claims based on alleged violations of RCW 48.29.140 and WAC 284-30-800, as well as her common law claims for money-had-and-received, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.29.140(2) — 3 cases
Blaylock v. First Am. Title Ins., 504 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (W.D. Wash. 2007). “Defendants argue that because their rates were submitted to the Commissioner and because they were required to charge only the rates that they filed, RCW § 48.29.140, their act of charging the filed rates cannot be construed to be a violation of the CPA.”
Hoving v. Lawyers Title Ins., 256 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Mich. 2009). “”); Wash. Rev.Code § 48.29.140(2) (“Each title insurer shall forthwith file with the commissioner a schedule showing the premium rates to be charged by it.”
Leslie v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins., 598 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (W.D. Wash. 2009). “The Court dismissed Plaintiffs Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) per-se claims based on alleged violations of RCW 48.29.140 and WAC 284-30-800, as well as her common law claims for money-had-and-received, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.29.140(3) — 2 cases
Blaylock v. First Am. Title Ins., 504 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (W.D. Wash. 2007). “Defendants argue that because their rates were submitted to the Commissioner and because they were required to charge only the rates that they filed, RCW § 48.29.140, their act of charging the filed rates cannot be construed to be a violation of the CPA.”
Leslie v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins., 598 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (W.D. Wash. 2009). “The Court dismissed Plaintiffs Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) per-se claims based on alleged violations of RCW 48.29.140 and WAC 284-30-800, as well as her common law claims for money-had-and-received, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract.”
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.