Wash. Rev. Code » Title 48 · Chapter 48.30
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 48.30.090 (2026)

Misrepresentation of policies

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No person shall make, issue or circulate, or cause to be made, issued or circulated any misrepresentation of the terms of any policy or the benefits or advantages promised thereby, or the dividends or share of surplus to be received thereon, or use any name or title of any policy or class of policies misrepresenting the nature thereof.
[1947 c 79 s .30.09; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 45.30.09.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2022 · leading case: Peterson v. Big Bend Ins. Agency, Inc., 202 P.3d 372 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Peterson v. Big Bend Ins. Agency, Inc., 202 P.3d 372 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “) ¶ 42 The trial court determined that Big Bend did not misrepresent the limits of the Petersons' replacement value coverage for purposes of a CPA claim.”
Peterson v. Big Bend Ins. Agency, 150 Wash. App. 504 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “) ¶42 The trial court determined that Big Bend did not misrepresent the limits of the Petersons’ replacement value coverage for purposes of a CPA claim.”
Rizzuti v. Basin Travel Serv. of Othello, Inc., 105 P.3d 1012 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “090; WAC 284-30-330(1); WAC 284-30-350); (3) denial of coverage without a reasonable investigation (WAC 284-30-330(3), (4); WAC 284-30-370); and (4) failure to timely respond to the Rizzutis (WAC 284-30-330(2); WAC 284-30-360).”
Rizzuti v. Basin Travel Serv. of Othello, Inc., 125 Wash. App. 602 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “090; WAC 284-30-330(1), -350); (3) denial of coverage without a reasonable investigation (WAC 284-30-330(3), (4), -370); and (4) failure to timely respond to the Rizzutis (WAC 284-30--330(2), -360). They contend Til’s unreasonable conduct proximately caused them injury,…”
Shah v. Allstate Ins., 121 P.3d 1204 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Shah violates RCW 48.30.090, which states that “[n]o person shall make, issue or circulate, or cause to be made, issued or circulated any misrepresentation of the terms of any policy.”
Shah v. Allstate Ins. Co., 121 P.3d 1204 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Shah violates RCW 48.30.090, which states that "[n]o person shall make, issue or circulate, or cause to be made, issued or circulated any misrepresentation of the terms of any policy.”
Digit. Alchemy Llc v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (usa) (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “42 In the suicide exclusion provision of the life insurance policy, John Hancock states, "[W]e will pay (in place of all other benefits, if any) an amount equal to the premiums paid" if the policy terminates as a result of the insured's suicide.”
Long v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 4× “Both Peterson and Shah offer some support for such a claim, 14 finding that misstatements regarding how the replacement costs would be calculated and the 15 resulting inaccurate statements regarding “replacement costs” violated RCW 48.30.090. See 16 17 Peterson, 150 Wn.”
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.