Western States Law Library › Washington › Guide 05

Washington State Law Library · Guide 05 of 23

Uninsured & Underinsured Motorist Coverage in Washington

Washington UIM is first-party protection against damages caused by motorists who have no liability insurance or not enough insurance. The statute also reaches hit-and-run and qualifying phantom vehicles. Coverage ordinarily accompanies Washington automobile liability insurance unless it is validly rejected or limited as authorized by law.

Current-law review: Sept. 13, 2026 RCW 48.22.030 Written rejection required Uninsured + underinsured + phantom

On this page

What UIM Is Default Coverage Written Rejection How UIM Works Who Is Insured Hit-and-Run & Phantom Statutory Exceptions Multiple Policies Settlement Protection Citizen Workflow Authorities

Washington uses “underinsured motorist” as the broad statutory category

Washington's UIM statute is broader than the everyday phrase “underinsured driver” may suggest.

RCW 48.22.030 defines an underinsured motor vehicle to include a vehicle:

for which no applicable bodily-injury or property-damage liability insurance exists; or
for which the combined applicable liability limits are less than the damages the covered person is legally entitled to recover.

No insurance

Uninsured driver

The at-fault vehicle has no applicable liability insurance or bond.

Insufficient insurance

Underinsured driver

Liability insurance exists, but its limits are insufficient in relation to the injured insured's legally recoverable damages.

Unknown driver

Hit-and-run

Washington expressly includes qualifying hit-and-run vehicles in the UIM statutory protection.

No physical contact

Phantom vehicle

Washington creates coverage for qualifying no-contact crashes when the statutory corroboration and reporting rules are satisfied.

Washington's statutory purpose: RCW 48.22.030 expressly states that UIM exists to protect innocent victims of motorists operating underinsured motor vehicles.

Washington makes UIM the default coverage unless it is rejected

RCW 48.22.030 generally prohibits issuance or renewal of an automobile liability policy covering a vehicle registered or principally garaged in Washington unless UIM coverage is provided for persons insured under the policy.

For bodily injury and death, the statutory UIM limit is generally the same as the insured's third-party liability coverage unless the insured rejects all or part of the UIM protection as authorized by statute.

Example

$100,000 liability

The statutory starting point is $100,000 of bodily-injury UIM unless a valid rejection or reduction applies.

Example

$250,000 liability

The statutory starting point is correspondingly $250,000 of bodily-injury UIM unless validly rejected or reduced.

Do not begin with “Does the declarations page list UIM?” Begin with the statute. If an applicable Washington liability policy exists and UIM is absent or reduced, determine whether the insurer can establish a legally sufficient rejection.

Rejection of Washington UIM must satisfy the statute

RCW 48.22.030(4) permits a named insured or spouse to reject UIM coverage for bodily injury or death, property damage, or part of the otherwise applicable coverage.

The rejection must be in writing.

If a named insured or spouse has rejected UIM, the rejected coverage generally does not have to be restored in a supplemental or renewal policy unless a named insured or spouse later requests it in writing.

Clements v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

121 Wn.2d 243, 850 P.2d 1298 (1993)

The Washington Supreme Court treated the statutory writing requirement as a bright line. Because there was no written rejection of UIM, the coverage had not been waived.

If an insurer says UIM was rejected, ask for the rejection itself. Identify who signed or authorized it, when it was made, the policy to which it applied, and what amount of coverage was actually rejected.

A valid rejection can continue through later renewals

Washington does not necessarily require a new written UIM rejection at every renewal.

RCW 48.22.030 provides that the written-rejection requirement applies to original issuance under the statutory framework and not to every renewal or replacement policy following an effective rejection.

Johnson v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Washington

117 Wn.2d 558, 817 P.2d 841 (1991)

Washington recognized that a prior UIM waiver can continue in effect until the insured takes the written action required to restore the coverage, depending on the governing statutory version and policy history.

The correct investigation may therefore require the policy history, not merely the current declarations page.

UIM compares available liability insurance with legally recoverable damages

The statutory definition focuses on two different numbers:

the applicable liability insurance limits available to the covered person; and
the damages the covered person is legally entitled to recover.

The tortfeasor is underinsured when the applicable liability limits are less than those legally recoverable damages.

UIM is not defined by whether the claimant has physically collected every dollar of the tortfeasor's liability limits. Washington Supreme Court authority focuses on the insured's uncompensated damages and the applicable UIM policy limits.

Elovich v. Nationwide Insurance Co.

104 Wn.2d 543, 707 P.2d 1319 (1985)

Washington described UIM as protection intended to compensate the injured insured for covered damages until the insured is fully compensated or the applicable UIM limit is reached.

Hamilton v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Washington

107 Wn.2d 721, 733 P.2d 213 (1987)

Reinforces that exhaustion of a tortfeasor's liability limits is not, by itself, the statutory test for entitlement to Washington UIM benefits.

Practical point: determine the complete value of the covered damages before concluding that the tortfeasor is adequately insured.

UIM protects persons insured under the policy—not merely the insured vehicle

As Guide 04 explains, Washington distinguishes between named insureds and qualifying family members who have broader personal UIM protection, and persons who qualify principally because they occupy a covered vehicle.

A named insured or qualifying household insured may potentially have a UIM claim even when injured:

in another person's vehicle;
as a passenger;
while walking;
while bicycling; or
in another circumstance not limited to occupying the listed automobile,

subject to the policy, the statutory exceptions and the facts.

Kowal v. Grange Insurance Association

110 Wn.2d 239, 751 P.2d 306 (1988)

Illustrates the personal nature of UIM protection afforded a named insured.

Blackburn v. Safeco Insurance Co.

115 Wn.2d 82, 794 P.2d 1259 (1990)

Distinguishes named-insured or family-member protection from UIM coverage arising only from occupancy of a particular insured automobile.

Washington has a specific rule for phantom vehicles

A phantom-vehicle crash occurs when another vehicle causes the loss but there is no physical contact between that vehicle and the insured or the vehicle occupied by the insured.

RCW 48.22.030 requires two important safeguards.

Requirement 1

Independent corroboration

The facts must be corroborated by competent evidence other than the testimony of the insured or another person who has a UIM claim resulting from the same accident.

Requirement 2

72-hour police report

The accident must be reported to the appropriate law-enforcement agency within 72 hours.

A no-contact crash should be treated as an evidence emergency. Locate independent witnesses, surveillance video, dashcam footage, physical evidence and other corroboration immediately, and ensure the law-enforcement reporting requirement is satisfied.

Hit-and-run and phantom claims are not identical

Type	Typical distinguishing issue
Uninsured known driver	Driver is identified but no applicable liability insurance exists.
Underinsured known driver	Liability coverage exists but is insufficient relative to legally recoverable damages.
Hit-and-run	The responsible vehicle or driver leaves and cannot be adequately identified.
Phantom vehicle	No physical contact occurs; statutory corroboration and prompt law-enforcement reporting become central.

Washington authorizes several important UIM limitations and exceptions

UIM is strongly protected by statute, but it is not unlimited. RCW 48.22.030 itself recognizes several circumstances in which coverage may be excluded or limited.

Motorcycles and motor-driven cycles

The general UIM mandate contains an exception while the insured is operating or occupying a motorcycle or motor-driven cycle. Washington separately requires insurers writing motorcycle coverage to provide information and an opportunity to purchase or reject UIM under the statutory framework.

Owned or regularly available uninsured vehicles

The statute permits an exception while a person is operating or occupying a vehicle owned by or regularly available to the named insured or a family member when that vehicle is not insured for liability under the policy.

Umbrella and pure excess policies

The UIM offer requirement does not apply in the same manner to general liability umbrella policies or policies that operate only as excess over insurance directly applicable to the insured vehicle.

Britton v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America

104 Wn.2d 518, 707 P.2d 125 (1985)

Washington emphasized that policy provisions reducing the UIM protection mandated by statute are unenforceable unless authorized by the statutory framework.

Kyrkos v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

121 Wn.2d 669, 852 P.2d 1078 (1993)

The Washington Supreme Court invalidated policy exclusions that attempted to treat certain self-insured or government vehicles as though statutory UIM protection did not apply.

Policy exclusion test: read the policy provision, then ask whether RCW 48.22.030 actually authorizes the insurer to narrow the statutory protection in that way.

Washington also addresses intentional collisions from the victim's perspective

RCW 48.22.030 now expressly states that covered persons are entitled to UIM protection without regard to whether the event was intentionally caused by the tortfeasor.

Coverage is not available, however, when the insurer demonstrates that the covered person seeking benefits intended to cause the event.

When the covered person was the intended victim of the tortfeasor, the statute requires the incident to be reported to law enforcement and the insured to cooperate with the related investigation.

The perspective matters: an intentional act by the wrongdoer does not automatically convert the incident into a non-accident from the innocent insured victim's perspective.

Property-damage UIM is separately regulated

Washington's UIM statute also addresses property-damage coverage. Property UIM need only be issued in conjunction with bodily-injury or death UIM coverage.

Unless the policy provides broader protection, the statutorily required property coverage concerns physical damage to the insured motor vehicle.

RCW 48.22.030 permits:

a deductible of not more than $300 for property damage caused by a hit-and-run driver or phantom vehicle; and
a deductible of not more than $100 in other underinsured property-damage cases.

Multiple UIM policies do not automatically mean that every limit can be added together

Washington expressly permits policy provisions limiting certain forms of stacking.

RCW 48.22.030(5) allows a policy to establish one maximum accident limit regardless of the number of:

covered persons;
claims;
vehicles shown on the policy;
premiums paid; or
vehicles involved in the accident.

Subsection (6) permits policies to provide that when similar UIM insurance exists under multiple policies, the combined available limits do not exceed the highest applicable limit.

Greengo v. Public Employees Mutual Insurance Co.

135 Wn.2d 799, 959 P.2d 657 (1998)

Upholds Washington's statutory ability to enforce qualifying external anti-stacking limitations where multiple UIM policies otherwise apply.

Do not assume either “stacking is allowed” or “stacking is prohibited.” Identify every applicable policy and then compare each anti-stacking or other-insurance provision with RCW 48.22.030(5) and (6).

Guide 06 addresses Washington stacking and multiple-policy analysis in detail.

Liability-insurer insolvency can also trigger UIM protection

RCW 48.22.040 treats a vehicle as underinsured for UIM purposes when its liability insurer cannot satisfy its insured's legal liability because of insolvency.

The statutory insolvency protection applies when the tortfeasor's liability insurer becomes insolvent within the period specified by the statute.

The fact that liability insurance existed on the crash date therefore does not necessarily end the UIM inquiry if the liability carrier later becomes unable to pay.

Protect the UIM claim before releasing the tortfeasor

A UIM carrier may possess contractual or equitable subrogation rights against the person responsible for the crash.

Settling the liability case and signing a broad release without first reviewing the UIM policy can create a dispute over whether the insured impaired those rights.

Hamilton v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Washington

107 Wn.2d 721, 733 P.2d 213 (1987)

In addition to rejecting a mechanical exhaustion requirement, Hamilton addresses the relationship between UIM recovery, settlement with tortfeasors and the underinsurer's subrogation interests.

Before signing the liability release: give the UIM claim independent attention. Review the UIM policy, communicate the proposed liability settlement as required by the policy and Washington law, and determine whether the UIM carrier asserts any subrogation or consent-related rights.

Citizen workflow for a Washington UIM claim

Identify every potentially applicable automobile policy. Search the injured person's own policies, household policies and the policy covering the occupied vehicle.

Determine insured status under each policy. Separate named-insured or household status from coverage based only on vehicle occupancy.

Identify each UIM limit. Compare the UIM declarations with the liability limits.

If UIM is absent or reduced, obtain the written rejection. Review who made it, what coverage was rejected and the relevant policy history.

Identify all tortfeasor liability coverage. UIM cannot be evaluated accurately until the available liability limits are known.

Document the complete legally recoverable damages. Include medical expense, future care, earnings, earning capacity, noneconomic loss and other covered damages supported by Washington law.

For a phantom vehicle, preserve independent corroboration immediately. Locate witnesses, video, dashcam, physical evidence and other competent proof.

For a phantom vehicle, make the police report within 72 hours. Treat this as an immediate statutory requirement.

Open the UIM claim before finalizing the liability settlement. Preserve correspondence and satisfy applicable policy notice requirements.

Review subrogation rights before releasing the tortfeasor. Do not sign a final release without considering its effect on the UIM claim.

Analyze multiple-policy provisions separately. Identify anti-stacking, other-insurance and per-accident limitations and compare them with RCW 48.22.030.

Preserve the complete UIM claim file. Keep policies, declarations, rejection forms, coverage letters, liability settlements, medical evidence, damage documentation and insurer communications.

Primary authority behind this guide

RCW 48.22.030 — Underinsured, hit-and-run and phantom vehicle coverage

Washington's controlling UIM statute. It defines underinsured vehicles, mandates coverage subject to written rejection and statutory exceptions, governs limits and other insurance, establishes phantom-vehicle requirements and states Washington's public-policy purpose.

RCW 48.22.040 — Liability-insurer insolvency

Extends UIM protection to qualifying cases in which the tortfeasor's liability insurer becomes unable to satisfy liability because of insolvency.

Leading Washington cases

Britton v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America

104 Wn.2d 518, 707 P.2d 125 (1985)

Foundational modern UIM authority explaining the statutory protection and the limits on policy provisions that attempt to narrow mandated coverage.

Elovich v. Nationwide Insurance Co.

104 Wn.2d 543, 707 P.2d 1319 (1985)

Describes Washington UIM as first-party protection designed to compensate the insured until damages are fully compensated or the applicable UIM limit is reached.

Hamilton v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Washington

107 Wn.2d 721, 733 P.2d 213 (1987)

Rejects a mechanical liability-limit exhaustion requirement and addresses the underinsurer's subrogation interests following settlement.

Clements v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

121 Wn.2d 243, 850 P.2d 1298 (1993)

Enforces the statutory written-rejection requirement. Without a legally sufficient written rejection, UIM coverage was not waived.

Johnson v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Washington

117 Wn.2d 558, 817 P.2d 841 (1991)

Addresses continuing effect of an earlier UIM waiver and subsequent policy changes.

Kowal v. Grange Insurance Association

110 Wn.2d 239, 751 P.2d 306 (1988)

Important authority concerning personal UIM protection for a named insured.

Blackburn v. Safeco Insurance Co.

115 Wn.2d 82, 794 P.2d 1259 (1990)

Explains distinctions between personal named-insured/family-member UIM coverage and vehicle-occupancy-based coverage.

Kyrkos v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

121 Wn.2d 669, 852 P.2d 1078 (1993)

Invalidates exclusions inconsistent with Washington's statutory definition of an underinsured motor vehicle.

Greengo v. Public Employees Mutual Insurance Co.

135 Wn.2d 799, 959 P.2d 657 (1998)

Important Washington Supreme Court authority upholding qualifying anti-stacking limitations consistent with RCW 48.22.030(5) and (6).

Bottom line

Washington UIM is a statutory first-party protection against uninsured, inadequately insured, hit-and-run and qualifying phantom vehicles. Bodily-injury UIM ordinarily accompanies Washington liability coverage at corresponding limits unless it has been validly rejected or reduced. When UIM is missing, obtain the written rejection. When a phantom vehicle is involved, preserve independent corroboration and report the accident to law enforcement within 72 hours. Identify every policy, calculate the complete legally recoverable damages, analyze any anti-stacking language, and protect the UIM carrier's legitimate subrogation interests before signing a tortfeasor release.

← Guide 04: Who Is an Insured? Guide 06: Stacking & Multiple Policies →

Public legal education only. Current Washington statutes, insurance policies and controlling appellate decisions govern. UIM coverage depends on insured status, policy history, written rejection, liability insurance, legally recoverable damages, applicable exclusions, other-insurance provisions and the facts of the particular collision.