Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 48.32.100 (2026)

Nonduplication of recovery

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Any person having a claim against his or her insurer under any provision in his or her insurance policy which is also a covered claim shall be required to exhaust first any right under that policy. Any amount payable on a covered claim under this chapter shall be reduced by the amount of a recovery under the claimant's insurance policy.

(2) Any person having a claim that may be recovered under more than one insurance guaranty association or its equivalent shall seek recovery first from the association of the place of residence of the insured except that if it is a first party claim for damage to property with a permanent location, from the association of the location of the property, and if it is a workers' compensation claim or a longshore and harbor workers' compensation act claim, from the association of the permanent residence of the claimant. Any recovery under this chapter shall be reduced by the amount of the recovery from any other insurance guaranty association or its equivalent.

[ 2005 c 100 s 7; 1987 c 185 s 30; 1971 ex.s. c 265 s 10.]

Notes:

Intent—Severability—1987 c 185: See notes following RCW 51.12.130.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1978–2006 · leading case: Washington Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. McKinstry Co., 784 P.2d 190 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Washington Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. McKinstry Co., 784 P.2d 190 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 13× “WIGA moved for summary judgment, arguing that under RCW 48.32.100(1) the amount payable by it as a result of the excess insurer's insolvency should be reduced by the amount of any recovery under the primary insurer's policy.”

Washington Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 859 P.2d 592 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 3× “RCW 48.32.100. Hence, regardless of whether the Department' is held to be an insurer, the injured worker will have no right to double recovery.”

Washington Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Mullins, 816 P.2d 61 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “RCW 48.32.100(1) states: Any person having a claim against his insurer under any provision in his insurance policy which is also a covered claim shall be required to exhaust first his right under such policy.”

Shepard v. Washington Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 84 P.3d 940 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “WIGA denied liability, arguing that under RCW 48.32.100 it was entitled to offset the amounts Regence and Unigard had paid.”

Shepard v. Washington Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 120 Wash. App. 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “WIGA denied liability, arguing that under RCW 48.32.100 it was entitled to offset the amounts Regence and Unigard had paid.”

Proios v. Bokeir, 863 P.2d 1363 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “030(4) provides, in pertinent part: "Covered claim" means an unpaid claim, including one for unearned premiums, which arises out of and is within the coverage of an insurance policy to which this chapter applies issued by an insurer, if such insurer becomes an insolvent insurer…”

Prutzman v. Armstrong, 579 P.2d 359 (Wash. 1978). “2 To obtain compensation from the WIGA, however, a party must first comply *122 with RCW 48.32.100(1), which requires that "[a]ny person having a claim against his insurer under any provision in his insurance policy which is also a covered claim shall be required to exhaust…”

Vokey v. Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund, 409 N.E.2d 783 (Mass. 1980). “…of recovery provisions are Alas. Stat. 21.80.100 (1978) and Ill. Rev. Stat. c. 73, § 1065.96(a) (1975). 8 Wash. Rev. Code 48.32.100(1) (1971).”

Gallagher v. Sidhu, 109 P.3d 840 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “4 The nonduplication provision under RCW 48.32.100 provides, however, that a claimant who has a claim against his insurer which is also a covered claim under the Act must first exhaust his right under his own policy.”

Smith v. Washington Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 890 P.2d 1060 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “RCW 48.32.100(1). WIGA’s challenge to Smith’s standing must fail because, as discussed above, Smith’s insurers are not joint obligors on the unpaid share of the Estates’ settlement.”

Connecticut Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. State, 896 A.2d 747 (Conn. 2006). “10 In the present case, far from recovering double compensation, the state has recouped none of the funds it paid in workers’ compensation benefits.”

Alamo Rent a Car, Inc. v. Schulman, 897 P.2d 405 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “6 RCW 48.32.100(1). 7 McKinstry, 56 Wn. App.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.32.100(1) — 11 cases

Washington Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. McKinstry Co., 784 P.2d 190 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “WIGA moved for summary judgment, arguing that under RCW 48.32.100(1) the amount payable by it as a result of the excess insurer's insolvency should be reduced by the amount of any recovery under the primary insurer's policy.”

Washington Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Mullins, 816 P.2d 61 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “RCW 48.32.100(1) states: Any person having a claim against his insurer under any provision in his insurance policy which is also a covered claim shall be required to exhaust first his right under such policy.”

Proios v. Bokeir, 863 P.2d 1363 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “030(4) provides, in pertinent part: "Covered claim" means an unpaid claim, including one for unearned premiums, which arises out of and is within the coverage of an insurance policy to which this chapter applies issued by an insurer, if such insurer becomes an insolvent insurer…”

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.