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

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.12.100 (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) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the provisions of this title shall not apply to a master or member of a crew of any vessel, or to employers and workers for whom a right or obligation exists under the maritime laws or federal employees' compensation act for personal injuries or death of such workers.
(2) If an accurate segregation of payrolls of workers for whom such a right or obligation exists under the maritime laws cannot be made by the employer, the director is hereby authorized and directed to fix from time to time a basis for the approximate segregation of the payrolls of employees to cover the part of their work for which no right or obligation exists under the maritime laws for injuries or death occurring in such work, and the employer, if not a self-insurer, shall pay premiums on that basis for the time such workers are engaged in their work.
(3) Where two or more employers are simultaneously engaged in a common enterprise at one and the same site or place in maritime occupations under circumstances in which no right or obligation exists under the maritime laws for personal injuries or death of such workers, such site or place shall be deemed for the purposes of this title to be the common plant of such employers.
(4) In the event payments are made both under this title and under the maritime laws or federal employees' compensation act, such benefits paid under this title shall be repaid by the worker or beneficiary. For any claims made under the Jones Act, the employer is deemed a third party, and the injured worker's cause of action is subject to RCW 51.24.030 through 51.24.120.
(5) Commercial divers harvesting geoduck clams under an agreement made pursuant to RCW 79.135.210 and the employers of such divers shall be subject to the provisions of this title whether or not such work is performed from a vessel.
[ 2008 c 70 s 1; 2007 c 324 s 1; 1991 c 88 s 3; 1988 c 271 s 2; 1977 ex.s. c 350 s 21; 1975 1st ex.s. c 224 s 3; 1972 ex.s. c 43 s 11; 1961 c 23 s 51.12.100. Prior: 1931 c 79 s 1; 1925 ex.s. c 111 s 1; RRS s 7693a.]

Notes:

Effective date—2008 c 70: "This act takes effect January 1, 2009." [ 2008 c 70 s 2.]
Effective date—Applicability—1988 c 271 ss 1-4: See note following RCW 51.12.102.
Effective date—1975 1st ex.s. c 224: See note following RCW 51.04.110.
Ferry system employees in extrahazardous employment: RCW 47.64.070.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2021 · leading case: Gorman v. Garlock, Inc., 118 P.3d 311 (Wash. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gorman v. Garlock, Inc., 118 P.3d 311 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 10× “That court held that RCW 51.12.100 bars LHWCA-covered workers from maintaining a claim under RCW 51.”
Gorman v. Garlock, Inc., 155 Wash. 2d 198 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 7× “That court held that RCW 51.12.100 bars LHWCA-covered workers from maintaining a claim under RCW 51.”
Gorman v. Garlock, Inc., 121 Wash. App. 530 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 14× “’ ” 3 Here, the trial judges ruled that Gorman and Helton failed to state a claim because their claims fell under federal maritime law, and RCW 51.12.100 required that they be dismissed.”
Gorman v. Garlock, Inc., 89 P.3d 302 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 13× “'" [3] Here, the trial judges ruled that Gorman and Helton failed to state a claim because their claims fell under federal maritime law, and RCW 51.12.100 required that they be dismissed.”
Clausen v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 272 P.3d 827 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 2× “¶ 12 Maritime actions brought in state courts are governed by federal maritime law, both common law (referred to here as "general") and statutory.”
Lindquist v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 677 P.2d 1134 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 8× “The Department has contended from the inception of this case that coverage for the decedent's death is precluded under the State Act by the first paragraph of that statute (see footnote 2).”
Esparza v. Skyreach Equip., Inc., 15 P.3d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “The absurdity of literal application becomes even more apparent when one considers that one of the purposes of LHWCA's provisions allowing the employer to recover benefits paid without reduction for the employer's fault is to prevent double recovery by the worker—that same…”
Esparza v. Skyreach Equip., Inc., 103 Wash. App. 916 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “Programs, 999 F.2d 1341 , 1350 (9th Cir. 1993).”
Rhodes v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 700 P.2d 729 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 6× “The Department of Labor and Industries appeals from the trial court's decision holding the Department was barred by res judicata from collecting a disability reimbursement from plaintiff pursuant to RCW 51.12.100. We reverse. The facts are undisputed.”
Lopez v. Johns Manville, 649 F. Supp. 149 (W.D. Wash. 1986). · cites it 2× “RCW 51.12.100. The applicable maritime remedy is the LHWCA which sanctions third-party lawsuits against the United States in its capacity as vessel owner.”
Joshua Peterson v. Wa State Dept. Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 79× “An Industrial Appeals Judge (IAJ) upheld DLI’s order, and the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (Board) affirmed.”
Stevedoring Servs. of Am., Inc. v. Eggert, 914 P.2d 737 (Wash. 1996). “RCW 51.12.100. In the event that payments are made prior to a determination that the claim is covered by the LHWCA, the employee must repay the benefits paid.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.12.100(1) — 14 cases
Gorman v. Garlock, Inc., 118 P.3d 311 (Wash. 2005). “That court held that RCW 51.12.100 bars LHWCA-covered workers from maintaining a claim under RCW 51.”
Gorman v. Garlock, Inc., 155 Wash. 2d 198 (Wash. 2005). “That court held that RCW 51.12.100 bars LHWCA-covered workers from maintaining a claim under RCW 51.”
Clausen v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 272 P.3d 827 (Wash. 2012). “¶ 12 Maritime actions brought in state courts are governed by federal maritime law, both common law (referred to here as "general") and statutory.”
Gorman v. Garlock, Inc., 121 Wash. App. 530 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “’ ” 3 Here, the trial judges ruled that Gorman and Helton failed to state a claim because their claims fell under federal maritime law, and RCW 51.12.100 required that they be dismissed.”
Gorman v. Garlock, Inc., 89 P.3d 302 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “'" [3] Here, the trial judges ruled that Gorman and Helton failed to state a claim because their claims fell under federal maritime law, and RCW 51.12.100 required that they be dismissed.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.12.100(4) — 3 cases
Esparza v. Skyreach Equip., Inc., 15 P.3d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “The absurdity of literal application becomes even more apparent when one considers that one of the purposes of LHWCA's provisions allowing the employer to recover benefits paid without reduction for the employer's fault is to prevent double recovery by the worker—that same…”
Esparza v. Skyreach Equip., Inc., 103 Wash. App. 916 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Programs, 999 F.2d 1341 , 1350 (9th Cir. 1993).”
Joshua Peterson v. Wa State Dept. Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “An Industrial Appeals Judge (IAJ) upheld DLI’s order, and the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (Board) affirmed.”
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.