Wash. Rev. Code » Title 51 · Chapter 51.32
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.030 (2026)

When compensation payable to employer or member of corporate employer

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any sole proprietor, partner, or joint venturer who has requested coverage under this title and who shall thereafter be injured or sustain an occupational disease, shall be entitled to the benefit of this title, as and under the same circumstances and subject to the same obligations as a worker: PROVIDED, That no such person or the beneficiaries thereof shall be entitled to benefits under this title unless the department has received notice in writing of such request on such forms as the department may provide prior to the date of the injury or occupational disease as the result of which claims are made: PROVIDED, That the department shall have the power to cancel the personal coverage of any such person if any required payments or reports have not been made.
[ 1980 c 14 s 8. Prior: 1977 ex.s. c 350 s 40; 1977 ex.s. c 323 s 14; 1961 c 23 s 51.32.030; prior: 1957 c 70 s 28; prior: 1939 c 41 s 2, part; 1929 c 132 s 1, part; 1927 c 310 s 2, part; 1921 c 182 s 2, part; 1919 c 131 s 2, part; 1917 c 120 s 1, part; 1911 c 74 s 3, part; RRS s 7675, part.]

Notes:

Severability—Effective date—1977 ex.s. c 323: See notes following RCW 51.04.040.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1953–1997 · leading case: Jepson v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 573 P.2d 10 (Wash. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jepson v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 573 P.2d 10 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 67× “The Department rejected the claim on the ground that respondent "was an officer of a corporation at the time of injury and had not elected to be insured under the provisions of RCW 51.32.030 which provides: Any individual employer or any member or officer of any corporate…”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Fankhauser, 849 P.2d 1209 (Wash. 1993). “020(5) specifying that sole proprietors or partners would be included under the mandatory coverage provisions of the Act, but only if they first requested coverage in writing according to RCW 51.32.030. Laws of 1981, ch. 128, § 3.”
White v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 294 P.2d 650 (Wash. 1956). · cites it 2× “180, part]), does not prevent him from having the protection of the act if he desires to qualify as a working employer under the Laws of 1939, chapter 41, § 2, p.”
Lunz v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 310 P.2d 880 (Wash. 1957). · cites it 2× “, was covered employment under the provisions of RCW 51.32.030 relating to individual employers or members or officers of corporate employers.”
Latimer v. W. Mach. Exch., 259 P.2d 623 (Wash. 1953). · cites it 6× “in the Departmental opinion, that a self-employed individual engaged in any extrahazardous industry as a trade or business, with or without employees, can, if he so desires, qualify himself as an "individual employer" to receive the protection and benefits of the workmen's…”
Berry v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 729 P.2d 63 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “He had never made a written request to the Department of Labor and Industries to be covered under the Industrial Insurance Act.”
Jewett v. Kerwood, 263 P.2d 830 (Wash. 1953). · cites it 4× “RCW 51.32.030]) ? The circumstances which furnished the basis for the foregoing quaere are: Rollin Jewett, an employee of the highway department of the state of Washington, while engaged in the performance of duties under such employment and entitled to the benefit of our…”
Dosanjh v. Bhatti, 934 P.2d 1210 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “In summary, the plain statutory language of section 9 provides that if a worker covered by the B.”
Crall v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 275 P.2d 903 (Wash. 1954). “The supervisor of industrial insurance rejected her claim on December 2, 1952, on the ground that the deceased, George Crall, was an independent contractor and had not elected to avail himself of the benefit of RCW 51.32.030 [cf. Rem. Rev. Stat. (Sup.), § 7675, part], by giving…”
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.