Wash. Rev. Code » Title 48 · Chapter 48.56
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 48.56.110 (2026)

Cancellation of insurance contract

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) When a premium finance agreement contains a power of attorney enabling the premium finance company to cancel any insurance contract or contracts listed in the agreement, the insurance contract or contracts shall not be canceled by the premium finance company unless such cancellation is effectuated in accordance with this section.
(2) Not less than ten days' written notice shall be mailed to the insured of the intent of the premium finance company to cancel the insurance contract unless the default is cured within such ten-day period.
(3) After expiration of such ten-day period, the premium finance company may thereafter request in the name of the insured, cancellation of such insurance contract or contracts by mailing to the insurer a notice of cancellation, and the insurance contract shall be canceled as if such notice of cancellation had been submitted by the insured himself or herself, but without requiring the return of the insurance contract or contracts. The premium finance company shall also mail a notice of cancellation to the insured at his or her last known address.
(4) All statutory, regulatory, and contractual restrictions providing that the insurance contract may not be canceled unless notice is given to a governmental agency, mortgagee, or other third party shall apply where cancellation is effected under the provisions of this section. The insurer shall give the prescribed notice in behalf of itself or the insured to any governmental agency, mortgagee, or other third party on or before the second business day after the day it receives the notice of cancellation from the premium finance company and shall determine the effective date of cancellation taking into consideration the number of days notice required to complete the cancellation.
[ 2010 c 8 s 11006; 2009 c 549 s 7158; 1969 ex.s. c 190 s 11.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1976–2005 · leading case: Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins. Co., 52 P.3d 494 (Wash. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins. Co., 52 P.3d 494 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 31× “290 [2] and RCW 48.56.110. The court reasoned since all concerned other than Olivine knew of the cancellation, the policy must still be in effect with respect to Olivine.”
Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins., 105 Wash. App. 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 13× “DISCUSSION I Notice of Cancellation RCW 48.56.110 regulates the cancellation of insurance policies by premium finance companies like TEPCO.”
Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins. Co., 19 P.3d 1089 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 14× “Notice of Cancellation RCW 48.56.110 regulates the cancellation of insurance policies by premium finance companies like TEPCO.”
Ins. Mgmt. Inc. v. Guptill, 554 P.2d 359 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 10× “Whether Guptill received the crucial notices required by RCW 48.56.110 is a question of fact which must be determined from all of the evidence presented.”
Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins., 147 Wash. 2d 148 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 28× “290 2 and RCW 48.56.110. The court reasoned since all concerned other than Olivine knew of the cancellation, the policy must still be in effect with respect to Olivine.”
Higgins v. Scottsdale Ins., 127 Wash. App. 486 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “¶16 The fact that the insured in this case canceled the policy also defeats the Higginses’ argument under RCW 48.56.110. This statute applies to cancellation of a policy by a premium finance company.”
Higgins v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 111 P.3d 893 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “*898 ¶ 16 The fact that the insured in this case canceled the policy also defeats the Higginses' argument under RCW 48.56.110. This statute applies to cancellation of a policy by a premium finance company.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.56.110(1) — 2 cases
Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins. Co., 52 P.3d 494 (Wash. 2002). “290 [2] and RCW 48.56.110. The court reasoned since all concerned other than Olivine knew of the cancellation, the policy must still be in effect with respect to Olivine.”
Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins., 147 Wash. 2d 148 (Wash. 2002). “290 2 and RCW 48.56.110. The court reasoned since all concerned other than Olivine knew of the cancellation, the policy must still be in effect with respect to Olivine.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.56.110(2) — 5 cases
Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins. Co., 52 P.3d 494 (Wash. 2002). “290 [2] and RCW 48.56.110. The court reasoned since all concerned other than Olivine knew of the cancellation, the policy must still be in effect with respect to Olivine.”
Ins. Mgmt. Inc. v. Guptill, 554 P.2d 359 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). “Whether Guptill received the crucial notices required by RCW 48.56.110 is a question of fact which must be determined from all of the evidence presented.”
Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins., 105 Wash. App. 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “DISCUSSION I Notice of Cancellation RCW 48.56.110 regulates the cancellation of insurance policies by premium finance companies like TEPCO.”
Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins. Co., 19 P.3d 1089 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Notice of Cancellation RCW 48.56.110 regulates the cancellation of insurance policies by premium finance companies like TEPCO.”
Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins., 147 Wash. 2d 148 (Wash. 2002). “290 2 and RCW 48.56.110. The court reasoned since all concerned other than Olivine knew of the cancellation, the policy must still be in effect with respect to Olivine.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.56.110(3) — 5 cases
Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins. Co., 52 P.3d 494 (Wash. 2002). “290 [2] and RCW 48.56.110. The court reasoned since all concerned other than Olivine knew of the cancellation, the policy must still be in effect with respect to Olivine.”
Ins. Mgmt. Inc. v. Guptill, 554 P.2d 359 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). “Whether Guptill received the crucial notices required by RCW 48.56.110 is a question of fact which must be determined from all of the evidence presented.”
Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins., 105 Wash. App. 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “DISCUSSION I Notice of Cancellation RCW 48.56.110 regulates the cancellation of insurance policies by premium finance companies like TEPCO.”
Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins. Co., 19 P.3d 1089 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Notice of Cancellation RCW 48.56.110 regulates the cancellation of insurance policies by premium finance companies like TEPCO.”
Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins., 147 Wash. 2d 148 (Wash. 2002). “290 2 and RCW 48.56.110. The court reasoned since all concerned other than Olivine knew of the cancellation, the policy must still be in effect with respect to Olivine.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.56.110(4) — 7 cases
Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins. Co., 52 P.3d 494 (Wash. 2002). “290 [2] and RCW 48.56.110. The court reasoned since all concerned other than Olivine knew of the cancellation, the policy must still be in effect with respect to Olivine.”
Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins., 105 Wash. App. 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “DISCUSSION I Notice of Cancellation RCW 48.56.110 regulates the cancellation of insurance policies by premium finance companies like TEPCO.”
Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins. Co., 19 P.3d 1089 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Notice of Cancellation RCW 48.56.110 regulates the cancellation of insurance policies by premium finance companies like TEPCO.”
Ins. Mgmt. Inc. v. Guptill, 554 P.2d 359 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). “Whether Guptill received the crucial notices required by RCW 48.56.110 is a question of fact which must be determined from all of the evidence presented.”
Olivine Corp. v. United Capitol Ins., 147 Wash. 2d 148 (Wash. 2002). “290 2 and RCW 48.56.110. The court reasoned since all concerned other than Olivine knew of the cancellation, the policy must still be in effect with respect to Olivine.”
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.