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

Wash. Rev. Code § 48.30.300 (2026)

Unfair discrimination, generally

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Notwithstanding any provision contained in Title 48 RCW to the contrary:
(1) A person or entity engaged in the business of insurance in this state may not refuse to issue any contract of insurance or cancel or decline to renew such contract because of the sex, marital status, or sexual orientation as defined in RCW 49.60.040, or the presence of any disability of the insured or prospective insured. The amount of benefits payable, or any term, rate, condition, or type of coverage may not be restricted, modified, excluded, increased, or reduced on the basis of the sex, marital status, or sexual orientation, or be restricted, modified, excluded, or reduced on the basis of the presence of any disability of the insured or prospective insured.
(2) Except as provided in RCW 48.43.0128, 48.44.220, or 48.46.370, this subsection does not prohibit fair discrimination on the basis of sex, or marital status, or the presence of any disability when bona fide statistical differences in risk or exposure have been substantiated.
[ 2020 c 274 s 32; 2020 c 228 s 8; 2006 c 4 s 18; 2005 c 223 s 19; 1993 c 492 s 287; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 119 s 7.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: This section was amended by 2020 c 228 s 8 and by 2020 c 274 s 32, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section under RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).
Findings—Intent—1993 c 492: See notes following RCW 43.20.050.
Short title—Savings—Reservation of legislative power—Effective dates—1993 c 492: See RCW 43.72.910 through 43.72.915.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Cary v. Allstate Ins., 922 P.2d 1335 (Wash. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cary v. Allstate Ins., 922 P.2d 1335 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 4× “RCW 48.30.300 states: Notwithstanding any provision contained in Title 48 RCW to the contrary: (1) No person or entity engaged in the business of insurance in this state shall refuse to issue any contract of insurance or cancel or decline to renew such contract because of the…”
Brown v. Superior Underwriters, 632 P.2d 887 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 3× “— Plaintiffs Ann Brown, Joanne Ward and Tamara Turner (Brown) commenced this action for discrimination against Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company (Enumclaw) for failure to issue a homeowners insurance policy to unrelated co-owners in violation of RCW 48.30.300 and 49.60.178.…”
Cary v. Allstate Ins. Co., 922 P.2d 1335 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 4× “RCW 48.30.300 states: Notwithstanding any provision contained in Title 48 RCW to the contrary: (1) No person or entity engaged in the business of insurance in this state shall refuse to issue any contract of insurance or cancel or decline to renew such contract because of the…”
State Farm Gen. Ins. v. Emerson, 687 P.2d 1139 (Wash. 1984). “Appellant Cain maintains that an issue of fact was presented under RCW 48.30.300 which prohibits discrimination based on sex or marital status absent bona fide statistical differences.”
Glaubach v. Regence BlueShield, 74 P.3d 115 (Wash. 2003). “175, RCW 48.30.300, or chapter 49.60 RCW in conjunction with the statutes before us in a way that might dictate a different result.”
Glaubach v. Regence Blueshield, 74 P.3d 115 (Wash. 2003). “175, RCW 48.30.300, or chapter 49.60 RCW in conjunction with the statutes before us in a way that might dictate a different result.”
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Cohen, 815 F. Supp. 365 (W.D. Wash. 1993). · cites it 3× “RCW 48.30.300 states that the terms and condition of an insurance contract shall not be restricted on the basis of sex.”
Roberts v. Dudley, 993 P.2d 901 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 48.30.300(1) (“No person or entity engaged in the business of insurance in this state shall refuse to issue any contract of insurance or cancel or decline to renew such contract because of.”
Williams v. Nat'l Cas. Co., 132 S.W.3d 244 (Mo. 2004). · cites it 2× “I-89-1 (1989)), Washington (Wash. Rev.Code § 48.30.300 (1975-1976)), and Wisconsin (Wis.”
Edwards v. Farmers Ins., 763 P.2d 1226 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 9× “Kenneth's estate contended that the other insurance section was void under RCW 48.30.300 because it discriminates based on marital status, and that the limits of liability section is inapplicable to this case.”
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Cohen, 881 P.2d 1001 (Wash. 1994). “29 Amici Northwest Women’s Law Center, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Stop Abuse by Counselors, and Boston Associates to Stop Treatment Abuse ask this court to declare the "fair discrimination” provision of the insurance statute, RCW 48.30.300, unconstitutional as it…”
Armstrong v. Safeco Ins., 765 P.2d 276 (Wash. 1988). “Second, an insurer is specifically bound to state its "actual reason" for nonrenewal in its notice of nonrenewal.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.30.300(1) — 6 cases
Cary v. Allstate Ins., 922 P.2d 1335 (Wash. 1996). “RCW 48.30.300 states: Notwithstanding any provision contained in Title 48 RCW to the contrary: (1) No person or entity engaged in the business of insurance in this state shall refuse to issue any contract of insurance or cancel or decline to renew such contract because of the…”
Cary v. Allstate Ins. Co., 922 P.2d 1335 (Wash. 1996). “RCW 48.30.300 states: Notwithstanding any provision contained in Title 48 RCW to the contrary: (1) No person or entity engaged in the business of insurance in this state shall refuse to issue any contract of insurance or cancel or decline to renew such contract because of the…”
Roberts v. Dudley, 993 P.2d 901 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 48.30.300(1) (“No person or entity engaged in the business of insurance in this state shall refuse to issue any contract of insurance or cancel or decline to renew such contract because of.”
Kurt Herzog V. Kaiser Found. Health Plan Of Washington, Et Ano (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
Roberts v. Dudley, 993 P.2d 901 (Wash. 2000).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.30.300(2) — 1 case
Jeannette Simonton, V. Washington State Health Care Auth. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
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.