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

Wash. Rev. Code § 48.30.330 (2025)

Immunity from libel or slander

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
With respect to contracts of insurance as defined in RCW 48.30.320, there shall be no liability on the part of, and no cause of action of any nature shall arise against, the insurance commissioner, the commissioner's agents, or members of the commissioner's staff, or against any insurer, its authorized representative, its agents, its employees, furnishing to the insurer information as to reasons for cancellation or refusal to issue or renew, for libel or slander on the basis of any statement made by any of them in any written notice of cancellation or refusal to issue or renew, or in any other communications, oral or written, specifying the reasons for cancellation or refusal to issue or renew or the providing of information pertaining thereto, or for statements made or evidence submitted in any hearing conducted in connection therewith.
[ 1979 c 133 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1997–1997 · leading case: Magula v. Benton Franklin Title Co., 131 Wash. 2d 171 (1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Magula v. Benton Franklin Title Co., 131 Wash. 2d 171 (1997). · cites it 2× “However, in the context of insurance policies whose provisions are subject to RCW 48.30.330, which forbids marital status discrimination in insurance contracts, a somewhat more limited approach to marital status discrimination has been evident.”
Magula v. Benton Franklin Title Co., 930 P.2d 307 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 2× “However, in the context of insurance policies whose provisions are subject to RCW 48.30.330, which forbids marital status discrimination in insurance contracts, a somewhat more limited approach to marital status discrimination has been evident.”
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.