Washington
Punitive Damages in Washington State: Statute-Only Rule (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited October 18, 2026). · 44 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Washington does not allow punitive damages unless a statute expressly authorizes them. In Dailey v. North Coast Life Insurance Co., 129 Wn.2d 572 (1996), the Washington Supreme Court called this "the court's long-standing rule prohibiting punitive damages without express legislative authorization." Because no general punitive damages statute exists, Washington has no general cap, standard or procedure; each statute that authorizes punitive or exemplary damages sets its own terms, and some set limits, such as $100,000 in a hate crime civil action (RCW 9A.36.083).
The wrongful death and survival statutes do not authorize punitive damages, Washington public policy does not bar insuring them, and a Washington court may in some cases apply another state's punitive damages law. For how other states compare, see punitive damages laws by state.
Information last verified on 2026-10-18. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Washington state law on punitive, exemplary and multiple damages in civil cases: the rule of Dailey v. North Coast Life Insurance Co. (1996) and the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) sections named below. It does not cover compensatory or noneconomic damages generally, medical negligence procedure (see Washington medical malpractice law), wrongful-death procedure, deadlines and beneficiaries (see Washington wrongful death law), federal claims, or every statute that authorizes punitive, exemplary or multiple damages for a particular claim beyond those named here.
Does Washington allow punitive damages?
Only when the Legislature has expressly said so. The Washington Supreme Court explained the rule in Dailey:
"Since its earliest decisions, this court has consistently disapproved punitive damages as contrary to public policy. See Spokane Truck & Dray Co. v. Hoefer, 2 Wash. 45, 50-56, 25 P. 1072 (1891). ... Governing resolution of this case is the court's long-standing rule prohibiting punitive damages without express legislative authorization."
So the question in a Washington case is whether a statute covering that claim authorizes punitive or exemplary damages. Many do, for specific claims, but none applies to tort cases generally.
What must be proven
There is no single Washington standard. No general statute defines the conduct that supports punitive damages or sets a burden of proof, and the authorizing statutes each use their own trigger:
- Willful violation. In an action under RCW 27.44.050, "the plaintiff may recover punitive damages upon proof that the violation was willful" (27.44.050(3)(d)).
- Willful and malicious. Trade secret exemplary damages require "wilful and malicious misappropriation" (RCW 19.108.030(2)).
- Malice. Exemplary damages on a wrongful attachment or garnishment bond require a showing that the attachment or garnishment "was sued out maliciously" (RCW 6.25.100, 6.26.030); a farmer may recover exemplary damages if a court finds the action "was initiated maliciously and without probable cause" (RCW 7.48.315(4)).
- Intentional violation. Under RCW 29B.60.070, "if the violation is found to have been intentional, the amount of the judgment, which shall for this purpose include the costs, may be trebled as punitive damages."
- No stated standard. Several newer statutes simply list punitive damages among the remedies, for example RCW 4.24.345, 4.24.792, 7.113.030, 49.44.235 and 10.116.052.
Is there a cap on punitive damages in Washington?
There is no general cap, because there is no general punitive damages statute. Some claim-specific statutes set limits in their own terms; others list punitive damages with no stated limit.
| Statute | What it provides |
|---|---|
| RCW 9A.36.083 (hate crime offense, civil action) | "Punitive damages of up to one hundred thousand dollars," plus actual damages, fees and costs |
| RCW 7.110.050(1)(c) (unauthorized disclosure of intimate images) | "Punitive damages in an amount not to exceed three times the amount of damages under (a) of this subsection"; (a) is the greater of economic and noneconomic damages or statutory damages of up to $10,000 against each defendant |
| RCW 19.86.090 (Consumer Protection Act civil action) | Court "may, in its discretion, increase the award of damages up to an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages sustained"; the increased award for a violation of RCW 19.86.020 "may not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars" |
| RCW 49.52.070 (civil liability for double damages) | "Twice the amount of the wages unlawfully rebated or withheld by way of exemplary damages"; not available to an employee who knowingly submitted to the violation |
| RCW 19.108.030(2) (trade secrets) | Exemplary damages "not exceeding twice any award made under subsection (1)," for wilful and malicious misappropriation |
| RCW 4.24.320 (livestock) | "Exemplary damages up to three times the actual damages sustained, plus attorney's fees" |
| RCW 9.73.230(11) (interception authorized by a law enforcement agency in controlled substance or commercial sexual abuse of a minor investigations) | An authorizing agency is liable for "twenty-five thousand dollars in exemplary damages" where it has been determined that the authorization was made without the probable cause required by subsection (1)(b) and also without a reasonable suspicion that the conversation would involve the unlawful acts identified there |
| RCW 64.12.030 (injury to or removing trees) | Judgment "for treble the amount of damages claimed or assessed"; single damages only where RCW 64.12.040 applies (for example, a casual or involuntary trespass) |
| RCW 7.48.330(10) (firearm industry public nuisance, action by the attorney general) | Punitive damages "up to an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages sustained by the state" |
| RCW 29B.60.070 (actions under Title 29B, campaign disclosure and contribution) | Judgment for an intentional violation "may be trebled as punitive damages" |
| RCW 19.134.080 (Credit Services Organizations Act) | "An award may also be entered for punitive damages," with damages of not less than the amount the consumer paid |
The U.S. Supreme Court's due-process limits on the size of punitive awards also apply where a Washington statute authorizes them; the punitive damages hub explains them.
Statutes that authorize punitive damages with no stated limit
These sections list punitive damages among the remedies without setting a ceiling:
- Unlawfully summoning a law enforcement officer (RCW 4.24.345(3)). A prevailing plaintiff may recover "the greater of: (i) Economic and noneconomic damages; or (ii) $250 against each defendant found liable under this section; and (b) Punitive damages."
- Unauthorized publication of personal identifying information (RCW 4.24.792). A prevailing claimant may recover compensatory damages, "punitive damages," "statutory damages of $5,000 per violation," costs and fees, injunctive relief and other relief.
- Sexually protective devices (RCW 7.113.030). In an action under chapter 7.113, the court may award compensatory damages, punitive damages, "statutory damages of $5,000 per violation," injunctive relief and other relief, and "in determining punitive damages, the court may take into consideration any previous findings of liability against a defendant pursuant to this section."
- Female genital mutilation of a minor (RCW 9A.36.175(1)). A victim may sue "for economic and noneconomic damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs."
- Microchipping of employees (RCW 49.44.235(2), added in 2026). "The court may award a prevailing employee injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs."
- Law enforcement officers' use of face coverings (RCW 10.116.052(5), 2026). A person detained in violation of the section "may bring a civil action for damages against the officer in his or her official capacity, but an officer is not liable if, at the time of detention, the officer was in compliance with subsection (2) of this section." The remedies include compensatory and punitive damages.
- Civil action by an Indian tribe or member (RCW 27.44.050(3)(d)). Punitive damages on proof of a willful violation, which "may be recovered without proof of actual damages."
- Wrongful attachment, wrongful garnishment and malicious suits against farmers (RCW 6.25.100, 6.26.030, 7.48.315(4)). Exemplary damages where the statute's malice condition is met.
- Real estate contract forfeiture (RCW 61.30.150). A seller who records a declaration of forfeiture "with actual knowledge or reason to know of a material failure to comply with any requirement of this chapter" is liable for actual damages, fees and costs "and, in the court's discretion, exemplary damages."
Wrongful death, drunk driving, medical negligence and product liability
None of the ordinary injury statutes authorizes punitive damages. The wrongful death statute allows the personal representative to sue "for the economic and noneconomic damages sustained by the beneficiaries listed in RCW 4.20.020 as a result of the decedent's death" (RCW 4.20.010(1)). The survival statutes let the estate recover economic losses and the decedent's own "pain and suffering, anxiety, emotional distress, or humiliation" (RCW 4.20.046(2); 4.20.060(3)). None of these sections contains punitive damages language.
The medical negligence proof section, RCW 7.70.040, also contains no punitive damages language. The product liability act, chapter 7.72 RCW (RCW 7.72.010 to 7.72.070), likewise contains no punitive or exemplary damages language. That act does not stop a court from applying another state's punitive damages law to a product claim where that state has the most significant relationship to the issue (Erickson v. Pharmacia, Wash. 2025, described below). Under Dailey, a claim such as a drunk-driving crash or a medical negligence case supports punitive damages only if a statute expressly authorizes them for that claim. For the rest of these claims, see the Washington wrongful death page, Washington medical malpractice law and Washington car accident laws.
Discrimination claims. Under RCW 49.60.030(2), part of the section headed "Freedom from discrimination, Declaration of civil rights," a person injured by a violation of the chapter "shall have a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, or to recover the actual damages sustained by the person, or both, together with the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys' fees or any other appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter or the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, or the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988." The subsection does not mention punitive damages.
Recording and privacy. RCW 9.73.060, the civil action for violating the right of privacy, contains no punitive damages provision. The separate $25,000 exemplary damages rule in RCW 9.73.230(11) applies to an authorizing agency, where it has been determined that the authorization was made without the required probable cause and also without a reasonable suspicion.
Punitive damages under another state's law
A Washington court may apply another state's punitive damages law in a case with the right out-of-state connection. In Erickson v. Pharmacia LLC, No. 103135-1 (Wash. Oct. 30, 2025), the Washington Supreme Court applied the most-significant-relationship test issue by issue and held that Missouri law governed punitive damages in a Washington product liability act case against a manufacturer whose tortious conduct occurred at its Missouri headquarters, even though Washington law governed liability. The court held that the product liability act does not require Washington law to govern every issue in a claim under it, and wrote that Washington law "recognizes such damages when the governing law provides for them."
The Court of Appeals had reached a similar result earlier. In Singh v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., 151 Wn. App. 137 (2009), it wrote:
"Even though Washington has a strong policy against punitive damages, it has no interest in protecting companies that commit fraud. Where, as here, an entity headquartered in California committed the conduct in California that resulted in the plaintiff's damages, California had the greater interest in deterring such fraudulent activities. We affirm."
Does Washington take a share of the award?
No general Washington statute sends any part of a punitive award to the state. In one narrow action, RCW 27.44.050(3)(d) provides: "All punitive damages shall be paid by the defendant to the office of archaeology and historic preservation for the purposes of Indian historic preservation and to cover the cost of reinterment expenses by the office." A reviser's note to the section records that the office was transferred to the department of archaeology and historic preservation.
Government defendants
The state "shall be liable for damages arising out of its tortious conduct to the same extent as if it were a private person or corporation" (RCW 4.92.090). For actions against an officer, employee or volunteer of a local governmental entity, RCW 4.96.041 provides that, in the circumstances the section describes, "the judgment creditor shall seek satisfaction for nonpunitive damages only from the local governmental entity," and that "the legislative authority of a local governmental entity may, pursuant to a procedure created by ordinance or resolution, agree to pay an award for punitive damages."
A wrongful conviction compensation award under chapter 4.100 "may not include any punitive damages" (RCW 4.100.060(7), as amended in 2026). RCW 10.116.052(5), described above, is a statute that allows punitive damages against a law enforcement officer in official capacity.
Statutes that limit punitive damages
Some sections limit punitive damages or the sources that pay them:
- Condominiums and common interest communities. "Consequential, special, or punitive damages may not be awarded except as specifically provided in this chapter or by other rule of law" (RCW 64.34.100(1); RCW 64.90.060).
- Banks holding special deposits. "Except as provided by other law of this state, the bank is not liable for consequential, special, or punitive damages" (RCW 30A.26.110).
- Bonds and recovery accounts. A mortgage broker surety bond does not pay "any trebled or punitive damages" (RCW 19.146.240), and the homeowner recovery account may not pay punitive damages (RCW 18.27.410).
Arbitration
An arbitrator "may award punitive damages or other exemplary relief if such an award is authorized under the applicable law in a civil action involving the same claim and the evidence produced at the hearing justifies the award under the legal standards otherwise applicable to the claim," and must "specify in the award the basis in fact justifying and the basis in law authorizing the award and state separately the amount of the punitive damages or other exemplary relief" (RCW 7.04A.210(1), (5)).
Does insurance pay punitive damages in Washington?
Washington public policy does not prohibit it. In Fluke Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 145 Wn.2d 137 (2001), the Washington Supreme Court wrote: "We decline to conclude that insuring oneself against a disfavored penalty runs counter to public policy. We thus affirm the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that punitive damages coverage does not violate public policy in this state." The holding concerns public policy; whether a given policy covers punitive damages depends on its terms.
Under federal law, punitive damages are generally taxable income even when they arise from a physical injury (26 U.S.C. 104(a)(2)); the personal injury settlement amounts guide covers taxes.
Washington punitive damages at a glance
| Question | Washington rule | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Source of the remedy | Statute only; no punitive damages without express legislative authorization | Dailey (Wash. 1996) |
| General standard and burden | None; each authorizing statute sets its own trigger | RCW sections listed above |
| General cap | None; claim-specific limits (for example $100,000 hate crime; three times the (a) damages for unauthorized disclosure of intimate images) | RCW 9A.36.083; 7.110.050(1)(c) |
| Consumer Protection Act | Court may increase damages up to three times actual damages; increase for a 19.86.020 violation capped at $25,000 | RCW 19.86.090 |
| Willful wage withholding | Twice the wages as exemplary damages; not available to an employee who knowingly submitted to the violation | RCW 49.52.070 |
| Wrongful death and survival | No punitive damages language | RCW 4.20.010, 4.20.046, 4.20.060 |
| State share | No general split; RCW 27.44.050 punitive damages go to the state preservation office | RCW 27.44.050(3)(d) |
| Local government | Entity pays nonpunitive damages for defended employees unless it agrees by ordinance or resolution to pay punitive | RCW 4.96.041 |
| Insurance | Coverage does not violate public policy | Fluke (Wash. 2001) |
| Other states' law | May apply where the conduct occurred in another state, decided issue by issue | Erickson (Wash. 2025); Singh (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) |
| Arbitration | Only if a court could award them; basis and amount stated separately | RCW 7.04A.210 |
Recent changes
Two 2026 laws added punitive damages remedies. Laws of 2026, chapter 25 (Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2303, signed March 11, 2026, effective June 11, 2026) added RCW 49.44.235 on microchipping of employees. Laws of 2026, chapter 115 added RCW 10.116.052 on law enforcement officers' use of face coverings, which took effect immediately on March 19, 2026. Laws of 2026, chapter 224 (Substitute Senate Bill 5520, effective June 11, 2026) amended RCW 4.100.060, which keeps the rule that a wrongful conviction compensation award under chapter 4.100 may not include punitive damages.
In October 2025, the Washington Supreme Court held in Erickson v. Pharmacia that another state's punitive damages law can govern a Washington product liability claim when that state has the most significant relationship to the issue.
Related pages
- Punitive damages laws by state
- Washington wrongful death law
- Washington medical malpractice law
- Washington car accident laws
This article provides general legal information about Washington punitive damages law as of 2026-10-18. It is not legal advice. For advice about a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in Washington.
Last updated: 2026-10-18.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Washington allow punitive damages?
Only where a statute expressly authorizes them. In Dailey v. North Coast Life Insurance Co. (1996), the Washington Supreme Court described its long-standing rule prohibiting punitive damages without express legislative authorization. Statutes that authorize them include RCW 9A.36.083 (hate crime civil action), RCW 4.24.792 and RCW 49.44.235.
Is there a cap on punitive damages in Washington?
There is no general cap because there is no general punitive damages statute. Some claim-specific statutes set limits, such as up to $100,000 in a hate crime civil action (RCW 9A.36.083) and exemplary damages not exceeding twice any award under subsection (1) for willful and malicious trade secret misappropriation (RCW 19.108.030(2)). Others list punitive damages with no stated limit.
Are punitive damages available in a Washington wrongful death case?
The wrongful death statute, RCW 4.20.010, provides for the economic and noneconomic damages sustained by the beneficiaries, and the survival statutes (RCW 4.20.046 and 4.20.060) cover economic losses and the decedent's own noneconomic damages. None of these sections contains punitive damages language, and under Dailey punitive damages require express statutory authorization.
Are punitive damages available for drunk driving or medical malpractice in Washington?
Under Dailey (1996), punitive damages require express legislative authorization. The medical negligence proof section, RCW 7.70.040, and the wrongful death and survival statutes contain no punitive damages language. A Washington court may apply another state's punitive damages law in some cases with out-of-state conduct (Erickson v. Pharmacia, Wash. 2025).
Are Consumer Protection Act treble damages punitive damages?
RCW 19.86.090 does not use the word punitive. It lets the court, in its discretion, increase the award up to three times the actual damages sustained, and the increased award for a violation of RCW 19.86.020 may not exceed $25,000.
Does insurance cover punitive damages in Washington?
Washington public policy does not prohibit it. In Fluke Corp. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. (2001), the Washington Supreme Court affirmed that punitive damages coverage does not violate public policy in the state. Whether a particular policy covers them depends on its terms.
Does Washington take part of a punitive damages award?
No general statute sends a share to the state. In an action under RCW 27.44.050 (civil action by an Indian tribe or member), all punitive damages are paid by the defendant to the state office for Indian historic preservation and reinterment expenses.
Are punitive damages available against a Washington local government?
Under RCW 4.96.041, in an action against an officer, employee or volunteer of a local governmental entity, in the circumstances the section describes, the judgment creditor seeks only nonpunitive damages from the entity, though the entity may agree by ordinance or resolution to pay a punitive award. RCW 10.116.052 (2026) allows punitive damages against a law enforcement officer in official capacity for violating its face-covering rules.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Revised Code of Washington
§ 9A.36.083Hate crime offense—Civil action.In force
In addition to the criminal penalty provided in RCW 9A.36.080 for committing a hate crime offense, the victim may bring a civil cause of action for the hate crime offense against the person who committed the offense. A person may be liable to the victim of the hate crime offense for actual damages, punitive damages of up to one hundred thousand dollars, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing the action.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 19.86.090Civil action for damages—Treble damages authorized—Action by governmental entities.In forcecited in 8 of our articles
Any person who is injured in his or her business or property by a violation of RCW 19.86.020, 19.86.030, 19.86.040, 19.86.050, or 19.86.060, or any person so injured because he or she refuses to accede to a proposal for an arrangement which, if consummated, would be in violation of RCW 19.86.030, 19.86.040, 19.86.050, or 19.86.060, may bring a civil action in superior court to enjoin further violations, to recover the actual damages sustained by him or her, or both, together with the costs of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. In addition, the court may, in its discretion, increase the award of damages up to an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages sustained: PROVIDED, That such increased damage award for violation of RCW 19.86.020 may not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars: PROVIDED FURTHER, That such person may bring a civil action in the district court to recover his or her actual damages, except for damages which exceed the amount specified in RCW 3.66.020, and the costs of the suit, including reasonable attorney's fees.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 529 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Insurance (Washington Supreme Court 1986, 105 Wash. 2d 778)“…izens would be encouraged to bring suit to enforce the CPA. RCW 19.86.090, as amended, first in 1971 and again in…”
- Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp. (Washington Supreme Court 1993, 122 Wash. 2d 299)“…any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful. *312 RCW 19.86.090 creates a private right of action by pr…”
- Bowers v. Transamerica Title Insurance (Washington Supreme Court 1983, 100 Wash. 2d 581)“…d its discretion in awarding attorney fees of $42,805 under RCW 19.86.090. We hold that: 1. An escrow agent i…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: MHMDA Business Compliance (Washington), MHMDA Consumer Rights (Washington), What Is MHMDA? WA My Health My Data Act
§ 49.52.070Civil liability for double damages.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
Any employer and any officer, vice principal or agent of any employer who shall violate any of the provisions of RCW 49.52.050 (1) and (2) shall be liable in a civil action by the aggrieved employee or his or her assignee to judgment for twice the amount of the wages unlawfully rebated or withheld by way of exemplary damages, together with costs of suit and a reasonable sum for attorney's fees: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That the benefits of this section shall not be available to any employee who has knowingly submitted to such violations.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 212 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bostain v. Food Exp., Inc. (Washington Supreme Court 2007, 153 P.3d 846)“…orney fees pursuant to RCW 49.46.090(1), RCW 49.48.030, and RCW 49.52.070. The trial court granted summary judgme…”
- Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc. (Washington Supreme Court 1998, 136 Wash. 2d 152)“…nt to Schilling on her claim for double damages pursuant to RCW 49.52.070, which provides for such damages when a…”
- Chelan County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v. County of Chelan (Washington Supreme Court 1987, 109 Wash. 2d 282)“…court doubled this amount as exemplary damages pursuant to RCW 49.52.070. After adding interest on the amount of…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Final Paycheck Laws: No Acceleration, Real Penalties, Washington Minimum Wage 2026: $17.13 Statewide and Local Rates, Washington Severance Pay Laws (2026): Is Severance Required?
§ 7.110.050Remedies.In force
(1) In an action under this chapter, a prevailing plaintiff may recover: (a) The greater of: (i) Economic and noneconomic damages proximately caused by the defendant's disclosure or threatened disclosure, including damages for emotional distress whether or not accompanied by other damages; or (ii) Statutory damages not to exceed $10,000 against each defendant found liable under this chapter for all disclosures and threatened disclosures by the defendant of which the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known when filing the action or which became known during the pendency of the action.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 27.44.050Civil action by Indian tribe or member—Time for commencing action—Venue—Damages—Attorneys' fees.In force
(1) Apart from any criminal prosecution, an Indian tribe or enrolled member thereof, shall have a civil action to secure an injunction, damages, or other appropriate relief against any person who is alleged to have violated RCW 27.44.040. The action must be brought within two years of the discovery of the violation by the plaintiff. The action may be filed in the superior or tribal court of the county in which the grave, cairn, remains, or artifacts are located, or in the superior court of the county within which the defendant resides. (2) Any conviction pursuant to RCW 27.44.040 shall be prima facie evidence in an action brought under this section. (3) If the plaintiff prevails: (a) The court may award reasonable attorneys' fees to the plaintiff; (b) The court may grant injunctive or such other equitable relief as is appropriate, including forfeiture of any artifacts or remains acquired or equipment used in the violation. The court shall order the disposition of any items forfeited as the court sees fit, including the reinterment of human remains; (c) The plaintiff shall recover imputed damages of five hundred dollars or actual damages, whichever is greater.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 4.20.010Wrongful death—Right of action.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
(1) When the death of a person is caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of another person, his or her personal representative may maintain an action against the person causing the death for the economic and noneconomic damages sustained by the beneficiaries listed in RCW 4.20.020 as a result of the decedent's death, in such amounts as determined by a trier of fact to be just under all the circumstances of the case. (2) This section applies regardless of whether or not the death was caused under such circumstances as amount, in law, to a felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-06 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 122 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative (Washington Supreme Court 1983, 99 Wash. 2d 609)“…f survival can be brought under the wrongful death statute, RCW 4.20.010. Confronted with these problems, and…”
- Philippides v. Bernard (Washington Supreme Court 2004, 151 Wash. 2d 376)“…entative of his estate, filed a wrongful death action under RCW 4.20.010. Philippides’ parents brought an action…”
- Gray v. Goodson (Washington Supreme Court 1963, 61 Wash. 2d 319)“…in a judgment during her lifetime, abate upon her death? RCW 4.20.010 provides in part: “When the death of…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Medical Malpractice Laws in Washington (2026): Deadlines & Caps, Washington Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type, Washington Car Accident Laws: Fault, Insurance, and Your Claim
§ 4.20.046Survival of actions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) All causes of action by a person or persons against another person or persons shall survive to the personal representatives of the former and against the personal representatives of the latter, whether such actions arise on contract or otherwise, and whether or not such actions would have survived at the common law or prior to the date of enactment of this section. (2) In addition to recovering economic losses on behalf of the decedent's estate, the personal representative is only entitled to recover noneconomic damages for pain and suffering, anxiety, emotional distress, or humiliation personal to and suffered by the deceased on behalf of those beneficiaries enumerated in RCW 4.20.020 in such amounts as determined by a trier of fact to be just under all the circumstances of the case. Damages under this section are recoverable regardless of whether or not the death was occasioned by the injury that is the basis for the action.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 96 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative (Washington Supreme Court 1983, 99 Wash. 2d 609)“…le as a separate item of damages in a survival action under RCW 4.20.046. Yet, in the present case the majority…”
- White v. Johns-Manville Corp. (Washington Supreme Court 1985, 103 Wash. 2d 344)“…4.20.010 (wrongful death statute); (2) A claim under RCW 4.20.046 (survival statute); *346…”
- Hinzman v. Palmanteer (Washington Supreme Court 1972, 81 Wash. 2d 327)“…Lauretta Hinzman. Recovery by the estate is sought under RCW 4.20.046. Under this statute, all causes of acti…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Wrongful Death Laws (2026): Deadlines & Who Sues
§ 19.108.030Remedies for misappropriation—Damages.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) In addition to or in lieu of injunctive relief, a complainant may recover damages for the actual loss caused by misappropriation. A complainant also may recover for the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing damages for actual loss. (2) If wilful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subsection (1).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 21 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Thola v. Henschell (Court of Appeals of Washington 2007, 140 Wash. App. 70)“…t taken into account in computing damages for actual loss.” RCW 19.108.030(1). 6 Jury Instructions ¶26 Partie…”
- Eagle Group, Inc. v. Pullen (Court of Appeals of Washington 2002, 114 Wash. App. 409)“…may include lost business opportunities. We agree. Under RCW 19.108.030(1) of the UTSA, “a complainant may reco…”
- Boeing Company v. Sierracin Corporation (Washington Supreme Court 2000, 108 Wash. 2d 38)“…e secrets to be willful and malicious within the meaning of RCW 19.108.030(2), and awarded exemplary damages which…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
§ 9.73.230Intercepting, transmitting, or recording conversations concerning controlled substances or commercial sexual abuse of a minor—Conditions—Written reports required—Judicial review—Notice—Admissibility—Penalties.In force
(1) As part of a bona fide criminal investigation, the chief law enforcement officer of a law enforcement agency or his or her designee above the rank of first line supervisor may authorize the interception, transmission, or recording of a conversation or communication by officers under the following circumstances: (a) At least one party to the conversation or communication has consented to the interception, transmission, or recording; (b) Probable cause exists to believe that the conversation or communication involves: (i) The unlawful manufacture, delivery, sale, or possession with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell, controlled substances as defined in chapter 69.50 RCW, or legend drugs as defined in chapter 69.41 RCW, or imitation controlled substances as defined in chapter 69.52 RCW; or (ii) A party engaging in the commercial sexual abuse of a minor under RCW 9.68A.100, or promoting commercial sexual abuse of a minor under RCW 9.68A.101, or promoting travel for commercial sexual abuse of a minor under RCW 9.68A.102; and (c) A written report has been completed as required by subsection (2) of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 49.44.235Microchipping of employees—Prohibition—Cause of action—Definitions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) An employer may not request, require, or coerce any employee to have a microchip implanted in the employee for any reason. (2) An employee aggrieved by a violation of this section may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction. The court may award a prevailing employee injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. (3) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply unless the context clearly requires otherwise: (a) "Employer" means any person, firm, corporation, partnership, business trust, legal representative, or other business entity which engages in any business, industry, profession, or activity in this state and employs one or more employees, and includes the state, any state institution, state agency, political subdivisions of the state, and any municipal corporation or quasi-municipal corporation. (b) "Employee" means an individual who is employed by the employer or who is an applicant for employment with the employer.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Also relied on in: Washington Employee Monitoring Laws: Biometric Privacy, Social Media, and Surveillance (2026)
§ 10.116.052Law enforcement officers—Use of face coverings.In force
(1) The definitions in this subsection apply throughout this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise. (a) "Facial covering" means any opaque mask, garment, or other item that conceals or obscures the facial identity of an individual including, but not limited to, a balaclava, tactical mask, gator, ski mask, and any similar type of facial covering or face-shielding item. "Facial covering" does not include any of the following: (i) A translucent face shield or clear mask that does not conceal the wearer's facial identity. (ii) An N95 medical mask or surgical mask to protect against transmission of disease or infection or any other mask or device including, but not limited to, air-purifying respirators, full or half masks, or self-contained breathing apparatuses necessary to protect against exposure to any toxin, gas, smoke, or any other hazardous environmental condition. (iii) A helmet used to protect the wearer's head during transportation on a bicycle, wheeled all-terrain vehicle as defined in RCW 46.09.310, snowmobile as defined in RCW 46.04.546, helicopter, or any other vehicle for which a helmet may be used to protect the wearer's head.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 4.96.041Action or proceeding against officer, employee, or volunteer of local governmental entity—Payment of damages and expenses of defense.In force
(1) Whenever an action or proceeding for damages is brought against any past or present officer, employee, or volunteer of a local governmental entity of this state, arising from acts or omissions while performing or in good faith purporting to perform his or her official duties, such officer, employee, or volunteer may request the local governmental entity to authorize the defense of the action or proceeding at the expense of the local governmental entity. (2) If the legislative authority of the local governmental entity, or the local governmental entity using a procedure created by ordinance or resolution, finds that the acts or omissions of the officer, employee, or volunteer were, or in good faith purported to be, within the scope of his or her official duties, the request shall be granted. If the request is granted, the necessary expenses of defending the action or proceeding shall be paid by the local governmental entity. Any monetary judgment against the officer, employee, or volunteer shall be paid on approval of the legislative authority of the local governmental entity or by a procedure for approval created by ordinance or resolution.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 7.04A.210Remedies—Fees and expenses of arbitration proceeding.In force
(1) An arbitrator may award punitive damages or other exemplary relief if such an award is authorized under the applicable law in a civil action involving the same claim and the evidence produced at the hearing justifies the award under the legal standards otherwise applicable to the claim. (2) An arbitrator may award attorneys' fees and other reasonable expenses of arbitration if such an award is authorized by law in a civil action involving the same claim or by the agreement of the parties to the arbitration proceeding. (3) As to all remedies other than those authorized by subsections (1) and (2) of this section, an arbitrator may order such remedies as the arbitrator considers just and appropriate under the circumstances of the arbitration proceeding. The fact that such a remedy could not or would not be granted by the court is not a ground for refusing to confirm an award under RCW 7.04A.220 or for vacating an award under RCW 7.04A.230. (4) An arbitrator's expenses and fees, together with other expenses, must be paid as provided in the award.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Dailey v. North Coast Life Insurance Co., 129 Wn.2d 572, 919 P.2d 589 (1996)(static.case.law)
- RCW 9A.36.083: Hate crime offense, civil action(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 27.44.050: Civil action by Indian tribe or member, damages(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 19.108.030: Remedies for misappropriation, damages(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 6.25.100: Action on bond, damages and attorney's fees(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 6.26.030: Action on bond for wrongful garnishment(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 7.48.315: Agricultural activities, recovering lawsuit costs, farmers(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 29B.60.070: Damages, costs, and attorneys' fees(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 7.110.050: Remedies(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 19.86.090: Civil action for damages, treble damages authorized(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 49.52.070: Civil liability for double damages(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 4.24.320: Malicious mischief to livestock or theft of livestock, treble damages(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.73.230: Intercepting, transmitting, or recording conversations; conditions; penalties(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 7.48.330: Firearm industry, public nuisance(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 19.134.080: Damages, attorneys' fees(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 4.24.345: Unlawfully summoning a law enforcement officer, civil action(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 4.24.792: Unauthorized publication of personal identifying information(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 7.113.030: Remedies(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9A.36.175: Female genital mutilation, minors, civil action(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 49.44.235: Microchipping of employees, prohibition, cause of action(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Laws of 2026, ch. 25 (Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2303), session law(lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 10.116.052: Law enforcement officers, use of face coverings(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 61.30.150: Failure to comply with chapter, liability(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 4.20.010: Wrongful death, right of action(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 4.20.046: Survival of actions(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 4.20.060: Action for personal injury survives(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 7.70.040: Necessary elements of proof, failure to follow accepted standard of care(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 49.60.030: Freedom from discrimination, declaration of civil rights(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9.73.060: Violating right of privacy, civil action, liability for damages(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Singh v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., 151 Wn. App. 137, 210 P.3d 337 (2009)(static.case.law)
- RCW 4.92.090: Tortious conduct of state, liability for damages(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 4.96.041: Action against officer, employee, or volunteer of local governmental entity, payment of damages(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 4.100.060: Compensation awards, amounts, proof required(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 64.34.100: Remedies liberally administered(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 64.90.060: Remedies(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 30A.26.110: Duties and liability of bank(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 19.146.240: Violations, claims against bond or alternative(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 18.27.410: Homeowner recovery program(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 7.04A.210: Arbitration remedies(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Fluke Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 145 Wn.2d 137, 34 P.3d 809 (2001)(static.case.law)
- 26 U.S.C. 104: Compensation for injuries or sickness(www.govinfo.gov).gov
- Laws of 2026, chapter 224 (Substitute Senate Bill 5520): Wrongly convicted persons, compensation(lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Chapter 7.72 RCW: Product liability actions(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 64.12.030: Injury to or removing trees, etc.; damages(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 64.12.040: Mitigating circumstances; damages(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Chapter 7.110 RCW: Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Chapter 7.113 RCW: Sexually protective devices(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Erickson v. Pharmacia LLC, No. 103135-1 (Wash. Oct. 30, 2025)(courtlistener.com)
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.