Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.130 (2026)
Lump sum for death or permanent total disability
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 2632.SL) ***
In case of death or permanent total disability, the monthly payment provided may be converted, in whole or in part, into a lump sum payment, not in any case to exceed eight thousand five hundred dollars, equal or proportionate, as the case may be, to the value of the annuity then remaining, to be fixed and certified by the state insurance commissioner, in which event the monthly payments shall cease in whole or in part accordingly or proportionately. Such conversion may be made only upon written application (in case of minor children the application may be by either parent) to the department and shall rest in the discretion of the department. Within the rule aforesaid the amount and value of the lump sum payment may be agreed upon between the department and applicant. In the event any payment shall be due to an alien residing in a foreign country, the department may settle the same by making a lump sum payment in such amount as may be agreed to by such alien, not to exceed fifty percent of the value of the annuity then remaining.
Nothing herein shall preclude the department from making, and authority is hereby given it to make, on its own motion, lump sum payments equal or proportionate, as the case may be, to the value of the annuity then remaining, in full satisfaction of claims due to dependents.
[ 1961 c 23 s 51.32.130. Prior: 1957 c 70 s 45; prior: 1941 c 209 s 2; 1929 c 132 s 3; 1927 c 310 s 6(i); 1917 c 29 s 22; 1911 c 74 s 7; Rem. Supp. 1941 s 7681.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1985–2017 · leading case: Herzog v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 696 P.2d 1247 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985).
Herzog v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 696 P.2d 1247 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “Thus, his calculations result in a windfall to him, contrary to the obvious intent of the controlling statutes.”
Neil Beck, V Glacier Nw., Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “ATTORNEY FEES Beck argues that, should he prevail on this appeal and on retrial in superior court, he is entitled to attorney fees pursuant to RCW 51.32.130. However, because Beck does not prevail, we do not consider his request for fees.”
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.