Wash. Rev. Code » Title 51 · Chapter 51.12
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.12.095 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Common or contract carriers doing business in this state that are engaged exclusively in interstate or foreign commerce, or any combination thereof, shall provide coverage under this title for their Washington employees, unless the employer has furnished workers' compensation insurance coverage under the laws of another state for the coverage of employees in this state: PROVIDED, That any common or contract carrier or its successor that formerly had coverage under this title and by virtue of being exclusively engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, or any combination thereof, withdrew its acceptance of liability under this title by filing written notice with the director of the withdrawal of its acceptance prior to January 2, 1987, shall be governed by the provisions of this section that were in effect as of that date.
(2) A person who is domiciled in this state and who owns and operates a truck engaged in intrastate, interstate, or foreign commerce, or any combination thereof, may elect coverage under this title in the manner provided by RCW 51.32.030, whether or not the truck is leased to a common or contract carrier.
[ 1989 c 368 s 1; 1983 c 170 s 2.]

Notes:

Effective date—1989 c 368: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect July 1, 1989." [ 1989 c 368 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2001–2006 · leading case: Stelter v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 57 P.3d 248 (Wash. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stelter v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 57 P.3d 248 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 12× “, filed a written request for exempt status as a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce, pursuant to former RCW 51.12.095 (1983). Since then, Drotzmann, Inc.”
Stelter v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 147 Wash. 2d 702 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 12× “, filed a written request for exempt status as a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce, pursuant to former RCW 51.12.095 (1983). Since then, Drotzmann, Inc.”
Stelter v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 107 Wash. App. 477 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “However, the statute includes the following proviso: [A]ny common or contract carrier or its successor that formerly had coverage under this title and by virtue of being exclusively engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, or any combination thereof, withdrew its acceptance of…”
Stelter v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 27 P.3d 650 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “However, the statute includes the following proviso: [A]ny common or contract carrier or its successor that formerly had coverage under this title and by virtue of being exclusively engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, or any combination thereof, withdrew its acceptance of…”
More v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 137 P.3d 73 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 51.12.095(1). The IIA expressly excludes coverage for federal employees, RCW 51.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.12.095(1) — 5 cases
Stelter v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 57 P.3d 248 (Wash. 2002). “, filed a written request for exempt status as a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce, pursuant to former RCW 51.12.095 (1983). Since then, Drotzmann, Inc.”
Stelter v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 147 Wash. 2d 702 (Wash. 2002). “, filed a written request for exempt status as a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce, pursuant to former RCW 51.12.095 (1983). Since then, Drotzmann, Inc.”
Stelter v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 107 Wash. App. 477 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “However, the statute includes the following proviso: [A]ny common or contract carrier or its successor that formerly had coverage under this title and by virtue of being exclusively engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, or any combination thereof, withdrew its acceptance of…”
Stelter v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 27 P.3d 650 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “However, the statute includes the following proviso: [A]ny common or contract carrier or its successor that formerly had coverage under this title and by virtue of being exclusively engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, or any combination thereof, withdrew its acceptance of…”
More v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 137 P.3d 73 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 51.12.095(1). The IIA expressly excludes coverage for federal employees, RCW 51.”
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.