Western States Law Library › Washington › Guide 21
Washington State Law Library · Guide 21 of 23

PIP, Medical Liens & Reimbursement in Washington

Medical bills after a Washington crash can involve several different payment systems. Personal injury protection can pay qualifying medical expenses and other benefits without waiting for a fault determination. Medical providers can acquire statutory liens against a tort recovery. And an insurer that paid benefits may later assert reimbursement or subrogation rights. These systems overlap, but they are not the same.

Current-law review: Sept. 13, 2026 PIP is optional but must be offered $10,000 minimum medical benefit Medical liens capped collectively at 25%

Washington PIP is first-party insurance for crash-related losses

Personal injury protection—PIP—is coverage purchased under an automobile policy for specified losses sustained by an insured because of an automobile accident.

PIP ordinarily pays without deciding who caused the crash. It is different from the at-fault driver's bodily-injury liability coverage.

This allows qualifying medical bills and certain other losses to be addressed while the liability claim may still be under investigation or litigation.

First party

PIP

The injured insured seeks contractual benefits under an applicable automobile insurance policy.

Third party

Liability claim

The injured person seeks tort damages from the driver or other entity legally responsible for causing the collision.

PIP coverage follows Washington's statutory definition of “insured”

RCW 48.22.005 includes several categories.

An insured can include:

  • the named insured;
  • a qualifying resident relative;
  • a resident ward, foster child or stepchild;
  • a person injured while occupying or using the insured automobile with permission; and
  • a pedestrian accidentally struck by the insured automobile.
PIP is not limited to the policyholder who bought the policy. A passenger or pedestrian may qualify because of the person's relationship to the insured automobile.

Owned and regularly used unlisted vehicles can create important exceptions

RCW 48.22.090 permits specified PIP exclusions where the named insured or a relative is occupying another vehicle that is owned by or regularly available to that person but is not listed on the declarations page of the policy under which PIP is claimed.

Do not assume household PIP automatically follows a person into every automobile. Ownership, regular availability and the declarations page matter.

Other statutory exceptions include intentional self-injury, qualifying racing activity and injury arising from the insured's use of an automobile in committing a felony.

Washington's minimum PIP package contains four benefits

Under RCW 48.22.095, insurers must offer at least:

Medical

$10,000

Medical and hospital benefits for each insured.

Funeral

$2,000

Funeral expense benefit.

Income

$10,000

Income continuation, subject to a $200 weekly limit.

Services

$5,000

Loss-of-services benefits, subject to a $200 weekly limit.

These are minimum offered limits, not necessarily the limits actually purchased on a particular policy.

Washington requires a higher PIP option on request

RCW 48.22.100 requires an insurer, when requested by the named insured, to offer higher limits:

Benefit Minimum option Higher option
Medical / hospital $10,000 $35,000
Funeral $2,000 $2,000
Income continuation $10,000 / $200 week $35,000 / $700 week
Loss of services $5,000 / $200 week $14,600 total
Check the declarations page. Do not assume a Washington policy carries only the statutory minimum PIP limits.

Medical benefits cover reasonable and necessary accident-related care

RCW 48.22.005 defines medical and hospital benefits as payment of reasonable and necessary expenses for qualifying health care resulting from the automobile accident.

Covered services can include:

  • licensed health care services;
  • ambulance service;
  • hospital care;
  • professional nursing;
  • pharmaceuticals;
  • prosthetic devices; and
  • eyeglasses.
Medical and hospital expenses must be incurred within three years after the automobile accident.

Income continuation has a waiting period and statutory coordination rule

Washington's PIP income-continuation benefit begins 14 days after the accident.

The benefit ends at the earliest of:

  • the date the insured can reasonably perform the duties of the usual occupation;
  • 54 weeks after the accident; or
  • the insured's death.
Combined weekly payments from PIP, workers' compensation, disability insurance and other income-continuation benefits may not exceed 85% of the insured's weekly income from work.

Loss-of-services benefits pay for replacement household services

Washington defines loss-of-services benefits as reimbursement for reasonable expenses paid to people outside the insured's household to perform services the injured person ordinarily would have performed without compensation.

The services must actually be rendered.

The statutory definition limits this benefit to $40 per day and ends it at the earliest of recovery, 52 weeks after the accident, or death.

PIP is optional—but Washington requires a written rejection

RCW 48.22.085 requires PIP to be offered with new and renewed automobile liability policies.

No written rejection → PIP should have been included.

A named insured may reject PIP in writing. Once properly rejected:

  • the rejection binds all levels of PIP coverage;
  • it binds everyone who otherwise might have qualified as an insured;
  • it carries through supplemental policies;
  • it carries through renewals and replacements; and
  • coverage need not return until a named insured requests it in writing.
If the insurer says PIP was rejected, ask for the written rejection. Do not accept a claims-system notation as a substitute for the governing document.

PIP does not automatically make every medical invoice payable

PIP covers actual qualifying loss or expense incurred.

A medical bill must satisfy the Washington requirements that the treatment be:

  • reasonable;
  • necessary;
  • related to the automobile accident; and
  • incurred within three years after the accident.
Those four questions define the medical-benefit dispute. Washington does not permit an insurer to invent an additional medical criterion merely because it prefers a narrower claim standard.

Washington specifically regulates PIP medical denials and treatment cutoffs

WAC 284-30-395 applies when an insurer relies on medical opinion to deny, limit or terminate PIP medical and hospital benefits.

Before denying, limiting or terminating those benefits, the insurer must provide written disclosure explaining the coverage and the permissible grounds.

The permissible medical grounds are:

1. treatment is not reasonable;
2. treatment is not necessary;
3. treatment is not related to the accident; or
4. the expense was not incurred within three years of the accident.

If the insurer decides to deny, limit or terminate benefits, it must give the insured a written explanation containing the true reason in clear and understandable language.

A conclusory statement that treatment is merely “not reasonable or necessary” is not sufficient under the regulation when the insurer relies on a health-care professional's review.

The reviewing medical professional must have appropriate qualifications

WAC 284-30-395 requires a professional used by the insurer to review a PIP medical denial to be currently licensed, certified or registered in the same health field or specialty as the treating professional whose treatment is being reviewed.

Where several providers are involved, the rule ordinarily requires review by a professional in the same field or specialty as the principal prescribing or diagnosing provider unless the insured and insurer agree otherwise.

Request the basis of a treatment cutoff. The claim file should identify the medical opinion, actual reason for the decision and qualifications of the reviewing professional.

“Maximum medical improvement” is not an additional Washington PIP cutoff

Durant v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
191 Wn.2d 1 (2018)

The Washington Supreme Court held that an insurer could not add “maximum medical improvement” as an additional condition for payment of PIP medical benefits. The four grounds in WAC 284-30-395 are exclusive.

Treatment that remains reasonable, necessary, accident-related and incurred within three years cannot be denied solely because the patient has reached a purported plateau or maximum medical improvement.

A PIP medical dispute does not permit the insurer to hold unrelated property benefits hostage

WAC 284-30-395 expressly provides that an insurer may not refuse payment of covered property-damage expenses solely because the insured did not attend or chose not to participate in an independent medical examination requested under PIP coverage.

Separate the coverages. A medical examination dispute under PIP does not automatically suspend an otherwise covered collision or property-damage claim.

A medical-provider lien is different from the medical bill itself

Chapter 60.44 RCW gives specified providers a statutory lien against the injured person's tort claim or recovery for services provided because of a traumatic injury.

Potential lien claimants include:

  • ambulance services;
  • hospitals;
  • licensed nurses;
  • licensed practitioners;
  • physicians; and
  • surgeons.
The lien attaches to the patient's claim, right of action or money due from the tortfeasor or the tortfeasor's insurer.
A provider saying “you owe this bill” does not by itself establish a perfected chapter 60.44 lien. Billing liability and statutory lien rights are related but distinct issues.

Washington imposes specific requirements for a provider to obtain the statutory lien

RCW 60.44.020 requires the provider, among other things, to disclose the use of liens as part of its billing and collection practices and to file a verified notice of claim with the county auditor where the services were performed.

The notice identifies information including:

  • the lien claimant;
  • the patient;
  • the accident circumstances;
  • the nature of the injury where applicable; and
  • the tortfeasor when known.
The statute calls for filing within 20 days after the injury or receipt of the transportation or care, but if settlement and payment have not yet occurred, filing may still occur before settlement and payment under the statute's express language.
Verify the lien rather than assuming it exists. Obtain the recorded lien notice and compare it with chapter 60.44's requirements.

Washington caps chapter 60.44 medical liens collectively at 25% of the recovery

RCW 60.44.010 contains a particularly important limitation.

All chapter 60.44 liens for services rendered to one person from one accident or event may not exceed 25% of the award, verdict, judgment or settlement.

Example:

Tort settlement Filed provider liens Chapter 60.44 aggregate ceiling
$100,000 $45,000 $25,000 maximum statutory lien burden
The 25% cap does not necessarily erase the underlying medical debt. It limits the aggregate statutory lien against the tort recovery. Separate billing rights, contracts and other reimbursement systems require their own analysis.

A tort settlement does not automatically eliminate a perfected medical lien

RCW 60.44.050 protects a qualifying lien when the patient and tortfeasor or liability insurer settle.

A settlement does not discharge the lien unless the settlement provides for payment and discharge of the lien or an appropriate written lien release or waiver is obtained.
Before distributing settlement money, perform a lien check. Ignoring a properly perfected lien can create a dispute involving the provider, claimant and liability insurer.

Washington also regulates enforcement and release of the lien

RCW 60.44.060 permits enforcement of the lien by suit brought within one year after filing of the lien.

After payment or settlement and acceptance of the amount due to the lien claimant, the claimant generally must prepare and deliver a release of the paid lien rights within 30 days.

If an unjustified delay requires a lawsuit to compel delivery of the lien release, the statute authorizes costs, reasonable attorney fees and damages in addition to the release.

Not every reimbursement claim is a chapter 60.44 lien

A serious injury claim can contain several completely different payment interests:

Claim Source
PIP reimbursement Auto policy, subrogation law and Washington made-whole doctrine
Hospital / provider lien Chapter 60.44 RCW
Health-plan reimbursement Plan contract plus applicable state or federal law
Workers' compensation Title 51 RCW
Medicaid / public-benefit recovery Separate statutory reimbursement system
Medicare Separate federal reimbursement system
Do not call every payment demand a “medical lien.” Identify the legal source of each reimbursement claim before deciding whether it is valid, perfected, reducible or payable from settlement proceeds.

PIP payments can create later reimbursement or subrogation issues

Suppose the PIP insurer pays $10,000 of medical bills and the injured person later recovers damages from the negligent driver.

Depending on the policy and circumstances, the PIP insurer may seek to recover amounts it previously paid.

Subrogation

Insurer pursues tortfeasor

The insurer seeks recovery by stepping into rights arising from the insured's loss.

Reimbursement

Insured obtained recovery

The policy may permit reimbursement from qualifying proceeds the injured insured recovered from the responsible party.

Offset

Related insurance benefits

A carrier may claim a contractual credit to avoid duplicating payment for the same compensable loss.

Washington's made-whole doctrine places an important limit on all three.

Washington generally puts the injured insured ahead of the insurer

Thiringer v. American Motors Insurance Co.
91 Wn.2d 215, 588 P.2d 191 (1978)

Washington adopted the made-whole principle: an insurer ordinarily can recover from a tort recovery only from the excess remaining after its insured has been fully compensated for the loss.

Insured first; insurer second. If the injured insured remains uncompensated, Washington generally does not permit the insurer to take the limited recovery and leave the insured less than whole.
Daniels v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
193 Wn.2d 563, 444 P.3d 582 (2019)

Reaffirmed Washington's broad made-whole doctrine and rejected an artificially narrow approach. The doctrine applies when an insurer seeks recovery through mechanisms such as reimbursement, subrogation or qualifying offsets.

“Made whole” means the insured's total damages—not merely the medical bills PIP paid

A crash can cause damages far beyond the medical expenses paid by PIP.

Total compensatory damages can include:

  • medical expenses;
  • lost income;
  • future losses;
  • pain and suffering;
  • disability;
  • other noneconomic damages; and
  • other legally compensable loss.
Thiringer v. American Motors Insurance Co.
91 Wn.2d 215, 588 P.2d 191 (1978)

The insured could apply a limited tort recovery toward otherwise uncompensated damages rather than allowing the PIP insurer to treat the settlement as though it necessarily duplicated the medical benefits already paid.

Washington applies the made-whole principle to PIP offsets as well

Sherry v. Financial Indemnity Co.
160 Wn.2d 611, 160 P.3d 31 (2007)

Washington stated that the made-whole doctrine applies when an insurer seeks an offset, subrogation or reimbursement for PIP benefits already paid.

A clause labeled “offset” does not automatically avoid Washington's made-whole analysis. Examine the actual damages, payments, settlement and policy language.

If the insured creates the recovery fund, the insurer may have to share the cost of creating it

Mahler v. Szucs
135 Wn.2d 398, 957 P.2d 632 (1998)

Washington required the PIP insurer under the policy provisions at issue to bear its share of the reasonable expenses incurred by the insured in securing the tort recovery from which the insurer sought reimbursement.

Winters v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
144 Wn.2d 869, 31 P.3d 1164 (2001)

Applied the common-fund principle where the insured's efforts produced liability and UIM proceeds from which the PIP insurer recouped its payments. The insurer had to contribute a pro rata share of the expenses that created the recovery.

The insurer should not obtain a free recovery produced entirely through the insured's legal effort.

Do not confuse reimbursement reduction with reduction of the underlying bill

Several numbers may differ:

  • the provider's original charge;
  • the amount PIP paid;
  • the amount health insurance paid;
  • the amount written off by contract;
  • the amount asserted as a statutory lien;
  • the PIP insurer's claimed reimbursement amount; and
  • the amount ultimately payable from settlement.
Build a medical-payment ledger. Track every charge, payment, adjustment, lien and reimbursement demand by provider and payer.

Before settling, obtain every reimbursement and lien claim in writing

A settlement figure cannot be evaluated intelligently without knowing how much of the recovery may have to be paid to others.

Before final distribution, obtain:

  • the PIP payment ledger;
  • the PIP reimbursement or subrogation position;
  • recorded chapter 60.44 liens;
  • provider balances;
  • health-plan reimbursement claims;
  • workers' compensation recovery information;
  • government-benefit reimbursement claims where applicable; and
  • written lien releases or payoff agreements.
Do not determine the net settlement from gross medical charges alone. The legally enforceable payment interests may differ substantially from the face amount of the medical invoices.

Do not let a liability insurer resolve your PIP reimbursement rights for you

The injured person's dispute with a PIP insurer is a first-party insurance matter. The tortfeasor's insurer represents a different financial interest.

Before agreeing that settlement money satisfies a PIP reimbursement claim, determine:

• whether the reimbursement right exists;
• whether the claimant has been made whole;
• whether fees and costs must be shared;
• whether the amount duplicates damages recovered; and
• whether the policy or applicable law changes the analysis.

Washington requires disclosure when an insurer may seek reimbursement

WAC 284-30-350 provides that an insurer may not make a benefit payment without clearly advising the payee in writing when the insurer may later require reimbursement.

Preserve that notice. It identifies the insurer's claimed reimbursement position at the time benefits are paid.

October 18, 2026 PIP rule update

Washington's broader claims-handling amendments become effective October 18, 2026.

The amended version of WAC 284-30-395 continues the substantive PIP protection central to this guide:

  • the same four permissible grounds for limiting medical benefits;
  • written explanation of the actual reason;
  • appropriate medical-review credentials;
  • protection of property benefits from PIP-IME disputes; and
  • specified arbitration protections.
No substantive gap should arise on October 18. The central PIP medical protections described on this page remain in the adopted future version of WAC 284-30-395.

Citizen workflow after a Washington injury crash

Obtain every potentially applicable auto policy. Check the injured person's policy, household policies and the policy covering the occupied vehicle.
Determine whether PIP exists. Verify the declarations and, if coverage is denied as rejected, demand the written rejection.
Identify the actual PIP limits. Do not assume $10,000 medical coverage if higher benefits were purchased.
Open the PIP claim promptly. Provide providers with accurate PIP billing information when appropriate.
Maintain a medical-payment ledger. Record charge, payer, payment, write-off, balance, lien and reimbursement status.
Track the three-year medical-benefit period. PIP medical expenses must be incurred within the statutory period.
If treatment is denied, obtain the written reason. Compare it with the four permissible grounds in WAC 284-30-395.
Obtain the reviewing medical professional's basis and qualifications. A conclusory claims note is not the regulatory standard for a medical cutoff.
Reject an improper maximum-medical-improvement cutoff. Durant confirms that MMI is not a separate fifth ground for denial.
Search county records for chapter 60.44 liens. Do not rely solely on provider billing statements.
Apply the 25% aggregate lien cap correctly. Distinguish the statutory lien ceiling from the underlying debt.
Obtain every PIP reimbursement demand before settlement. Determine precisely what benefits the carrier seeks to recover.
Calculate whether the claimant has actually been made whole. Consider total compensatory damages, not merely medical expenses.
Apply Mahler and Winters expense-sharing principles where applicable. Determine whether the insured's efforts created the fund from which the insurer seeks repayment.
Identify separate health, workers' compensation and government reimbursement claims. Do not misclassify them as chapter 60.44 liens.
Resolve liens and reimbursements before final distribution. Obtain written payoff agreements and releases.
Keep copies of all releases. RCW 60.44.060 contains a specific statutory lien-release obligation after payment.

Primary authority behind this guide

RCW 48.22.005 — PIP definitions

Defines insured persons, medical and hospital benefits, income continuation, loss of services, named insured, automobile and other core terms governing Washington PIP coverage.

RCW 48.22.085 — PIP offer and written rejection

Requires insurers to offer PIP with new and renewed automobile policies and governs the continuing effect of a named insured's written rejection.

RCW 48.22.090 — PIP exceptions

Identifies circumstances in which an insurer is not required to provide PIP, including certain owned or regularly used vehicles not listed on the applicable declarations page.

RCW 48.22.095 — Minimum PIP benefits

Establishes Washington's minimum offered PIP package: $10,000 medical, $2,000 funeral, $10,000 income continuation and $5,000 loss of services.

RCW 48.22.100 — Higher PIP limits

Requires higher coverage to be offered on request, including $35,000 medical and hospital benefits and increased income and services benefits.

WAC 284-30-395 — PIP claim-settlement standards

Limits medical denials, requires meaningful written explanations, regulates medical-review qualifications and establishes additional PIP claim protections.

Chapter 60.44 RCW — Medical-provider liens

Governs qualifying ambulance, hospital, nurse, practitioner, physician and surgeon liens arising from traumatic injuries.

RCW 60.44.010 — Lien and 25% aggregate limit

Authorizes qualifying medical-provider liens against tort claims and limits all chapter 60.44 liens from one accident to 25% of the recovery.

RCW 60.44.020 — Lien filing requirements

Establishes disclosure, collection and filing requirements necessary for providers asserting the statutory lien.

RCW 60.44.050-.060 — Settlement, enforcement and lien release

Protects qualifying liens through settlement, establishes enforcement timing and requires release of paid lien rights.

Leading Washington cases

Thiringer v. American Motors Insurance Co.
91 Wn.2d 215, 588 P.2d 191 (1978)

Foundational Washington made-whole authority. The insurer's recovery is generally subordinate to the insured's right to full compensation.

Mahler v. Szucs
135 Wn.2d 398, 957 P.2d 632 (1998)

Major PIP reimbursement decision addressing insurer recovery and the insurer's obligation under the policies at issue to share reasonable expenses incurred to produce the recovery.

Winters v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
144 Wn.2d 869, 31 P.3d 1164 (2001)

Applies common-fund expense sharing when the insured produces liability and UIM proceeds from which the PIP insurer recovers benefits previously paid.

Sherry v. Financial Indemnity Co.
160 Wn.2d 611, 160 P.3d 31 (2007)

Confirms the broad reach of Washington's made-whole doctrine to PIP offsets, subrogation and reimbursement.

Durant v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
191 Wn.2d 1 (2018)

Holds that an insurer may not use maximum medical improvement as a separate additional basis to deny, limit or terminate otherwise qualifying PIP medical benefits.

Daniels v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
193 Wn.2d 563, 444 P.3d 582 (2019)

Reaffirms Washington's insured-first made-whole doctrine and rejects a narrow limitation of that equitable protection.

Bottom line

Washington PIP is optional first-party insurance, but every qualifying auto policy must offer it and rejection must be in writing. Minimum PIP includes $10,000 in medical benefits, with higher $35,000 medical coverage available on request. PIP medical benefits pay reasonable, necessary, accident-related expenses incurred within three years, and Washington tightly regulates medical cutoffs and requires meaningful written explanations. Separately, hospitals and specified medical providers can perfect chapter 60.44 liens against tort recoveries, but those statutory liens are collectively capped at 25% of the recovery. A third system arises when a PIP insurer seeks reimbursement, subrogation or an offset after another source pays damages. Washington's made-whole doctrine generally places the injured insured first, and Mahler and Winters require attention to the legal expenses that created the recovery. Before settling a bodily-injury claim, identify every PIP payment, lien, reimbursement demand and other payment interest, determine its actual legal basis, and calculate the claimant's net recovery before signing the release.

Public legal education only. PIP coverage, provider liens, health-plan reimbursement, workers' compensation, Medicare, Medicaid and other payment systems can involve different statutes, contracts, priority rules and federal law. Before distributing settlement proceeds, verify the actual policy language, payment records, perfected liens, reimbursement rights and current Washington authority applicable to the particular claim.