Washington State’s Exclusive Remedy Rule

State Snapshot

BASIC RULE

In Washington, workers’ compensation generally is an employee’s exclusive legal remedy against an employer for a work-related injury. RCW 51.04.010. This means that an employee generally cannot sue the employer in tort for monetary damages arising from a workplace injury, such as by bringing a negligence or premises liability claim.

The exclusivity rule also generally bars claims by family members that are derivative of the employee’s injury. For example, Washington courts have held that the rule can bar wrongful death and loss of consortium claims based on the employee’s compensable workplace injury.

CO-EMPLOYEES

Washington generally extends workers’ compensation immunity to a co-employee who causes another employee’s injury while acting in the course and scope of employment.

However, merely working for the same employer is not always enough. To establish co-employee immunity, the employee who caused the injury generally must show both that: 1) he and the injured worker had the same employer; and 2) he was acting in the course and scope of employment when the injury occurred. Thus, an employee who causes an accident while performing work for the employer may be protected from being sued in tort by the injured employee. 

TYPES OF INJURIES COVERED BY RULE

• Physical injuries
• Occupational diseases
• Covered mental conditions
• Death resulting from a compensable workplace injury

The rule does not automatically immunize an employer from every lawsuit simply because the plaintiff happens to be an employee. The claim must fall within the workers’ compensation system. Independent statutory employment claims, for example, are not converted into workers’ compensation claims merely because they arise in the workplace.

MENTAL INJURIES - PTSD

PTSD or another mental condition caused by a single qualifying traumatic event can be compensable as an industrial injury covered by workers’ compensation. Examples of such events are actual or threatened death, physical or sexual assault, and life-threatening traumatic injury. 

In contrast, a mental condition caused by repeated stressful or traumatic events generally is excluded from occupational-disease coverage.

INTENTIONAL INJURIES

Washington recognizes a narrow exception when an employer deliberately injures an employee. Under RCW 51.24.020, if a worker’s injury results from the employer’s “deliberate intention” to produce the injury, the worker may receive workers’ compensation benefits and also sue the employer for damages exceeding the compensation and benefits paid or payable under the Industrial Insurance Act.

This exception is extremely narrow. To fall within it, the injured employee generally must establish that:

1. The employer had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur; and
2. The employer willfully disregarded that knowledge.

It is not enough to show that the employer acted negligently, recklessly, or even knew that its conduct created a serious risk of injury. Also, the required intent relates to the injury itself, rather than merely the intentional performance of a dangerous act.

Note: In latent-disease cases, an employer’s knowledge that injury is a “virtual certainty” can satisfy the requirement that the employer have actual knowledge that injury was certain to occur. Cockrum v. C.H. Murphy/Clark-Ullman, Inc., No. 102881-4 (Wash. 05/29/25).

THIRD PARTY LAWSUITS

The exclusive remedy rule generally does not prevent an employee from suing a third party for a covered injury. A third party means someone who is not the worker's co-employee.

For example, if a delivery driver is struck by a negligent member of the public, workers’ compensation may cover the employee’s injuries, but the employee may also pursue a negligence claim against the driver. Similarly, an employee injured by defective machinery may potentially pursue a product liability claim against the manufacturer of the machinery.

EMPLOYER FAILS TO SECURE COVERAGE

Washington treats an employer’s failure to secure required workers’ compensation coverage differently from states that automatically strip an uninsured employer of all protection from tort actions.

An employer that fails to secure workers’ compensation coverage may face substantial statutory liability and penalties. Further, an employee injured while working for an uninsured employer is entitled to file a claim with the Department of Labor and Industries and receive medical, wage replacement, and disability benefits directly from the State Fund. 

TYPES OF EMPLOYEES NOT COVERED

Washington law excludes certain employments from mandatory workers’ compensation coverage. Examples include:

• Certain domestic servants in private homes
• Persons hired to perform gardening, maintenance, or repair work in or around the employer’s private home
• Certain workers whose employment is outside the employer’s trade, business, or profession
• Persons performing services solely in return for aid or sustenance from certain religious or charitable organizations
• Sole proprietors and partners
• Children under 18 working for their parents in agricultural activities on the family farm
• Certain qualifying corporate officers
• Certain musicians and entertainers

Washington also excludes true independent contractors who satisfy the applicable statutory requirements for independent-contractor status.

RECENT CASES

Cockrum v. C.H. Murphy/Clark-Ullman, Inc., 569 P.3d 287 (2025) 

An employee developed mesothelioma after decades of workplace exposure to asbestos. He sued his employer for personal injury, claiming the employer acted intentionally and therefore was not protected by the exclusive remedy rule. To establish intent, an employee ordinarily must show that the employer had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur and willfully disregarded that knowledge. The employee alleged that the employer knew about the dangers of asbestos but exposed him to it without adequate warnings or protection. The lower courts held that the exclusive remedy rule barred his lawsuit because he could not establish that the employer actually knew his mesothelioma was certain to occur. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, statinbg that in latent-disease cases, an employer’s knowledge that injury is a “virtual certainty” can satisfy the requirement that the employer have actual knowledge that injury was certain to occur. The court stressed that this modified standard applies to latent diseases and does not generally loosen the demanding standard for immediate or readily observable workplace injuries. The court reversed the lower court’s ruling for the employer.

LaRose v. King County, 8 Wash. App. 2d 90, 437 P.3d 701 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019) 

A public defender developed PTSD and major depressive disorder after a client repeatedly stalked and harassed hers. The employee sought workers’ compensation benefits for those conditions on the theory that her PTSD and depression constituted an occupational disease caused by the cumulative effect of several stalking incidents. She stated that her conditions did not result from a single traumatic event and that she was pursuing her claim solely as an occupational disease rather than an industrial injury.  The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals denied benefits, concluding that her stress-related mental conditions did not qualify as an occupational disease. The superior court reversed. The Washington Court of Appeals ruled that WAC 296-14-300(2)(d) validly provides that repeated traumatic events generally cannot be aggregated into either an industrial injury or an occupational disease, although a qualifying single traumatic event within a series may constitute an industrial injury. The court reinstated the Board’s denial of the employee’s claim.

EXCLUSIVITY RULE IN NEARBY STATES

California

Oregon

Share This Article: