Other Languages(1) Under the provisions of chapter 270, Laws of 1977, 1st Ex. Sess., the risk management office of the State Department of General Administration is vested with the authority and responsibility for the purchase of (a) liability and property insurance covering the state's community colleges and (b) such surety bonds as are necessary for those institutions. (2) This same authority and responsibility also extends to the purchase of liability insurance obtained at state expense to cover the trustees, officers or employees of the community colleges under RCW 28B.10.844; however, it does not extend to the purchase of liability insurance as a part of the compensation plan for community college officers or employees under RCW 28B.10.660.
Under the provisions of RCW 35.23.352, a city or town of the second, third or fourth class is required to call for bids in the manner prescribed therein where the city or town seeks (a) to award a contract for liability and casualty insurance coverage, the anticipated annual premiums for which will exceed $2,000, and (b) to award a contract for the codification of municipal ordinances, the anticipated cost of which will exceed $2,000.
(1) Employees of the Washington State Ferry System are subject to the jurisdiction of the State Employees Insurance Board under chapter 41.05 RCW with respect to the design of such employer-funded insurance coverage as they receive from the state. (2) The employer's contribution of the Washington Department of Transportation under RCW 41.05.050(2) is not, in the case of ferry system employees, limited to that which the State Employees Insurance Board sets as the employer's contribution for state agencies generally.
Section 9 (4), chapter 241, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess., by which the legislature extended the state's pre emption of excise taxation with respect to insurers to include "or their agents," does not prohibit the imposition of excise or privilege taxes by cities or towns on the gross income of insurance brokers as defined in RCW 48.17.020 and insurance solicitors as defined in RCW 48.17.030.
1. If an employer offers its employees a health care package that includes prescription drug coverage, it is an “unfair practice” contrary to state statute (and in many cases also to federal law) to exclude coverage of prescription contraceptives, even on the basis of the “conscientious objector” statute, RCW 48.43.065. 2. The insurance commissioner has authority to require health care insurance carriers to include the cost of prescription contraceptives as a component in the rate setting actuarial analysis, where an employer raises a conscientious objection to paying these costs directly as part of that employer’s employee health care benefit package.
1. RCW 48.02.065(1), making certain records provided to the Insurance Commissioner privileged and confidential, is mandatory and does not grant the Commissioner discretion to release the records in response to a public disclosure request. 2. The confidential and privileged status conferred by RCW 48.02.065(1) and (6) extends to working papers, documents, materials, or information disclosed in the course of a financial or market conduct examination to a contractor or consultant acting under the direction of the Office of the Insurance Commissioner. 3. Records rendered confidential and privileged under RCW 48.02.065 remain confidential and privileged, even if the Insurance Commissioner does not issue any financial or market conduct examination report relating to such records.
(1) RCW 28A.58.420, as amended by § 2, chapter 269, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess., permits but does not require all school districts to make available to their employees an insurance program which would include medical or health care coverage entitling the beneficiaries to utilize the services of those practitioners who are licensed pursuant to chapters 18.22, 18.25, 18.53, 18.57 and 18.71 RCW.(2) If an insurance contract procured by a school district for its employees under RCW 28A.58.420, as amended, does include medical coverage relating to services which can be rendered by more than one of the above enumerated classes of licensees, the contract must then entitle the beneficiaries to choose between the services of each of those categories of licensees which are authorized to treat the particular covered illness or injury in question.(3) Where the board of directors of a school district is providing medical or health care insurance coverage for its employees under RCW 28A.58.420, as amended, it is not necessary that the contract for insurance or protection allow its beneficiaries to utilize the services of any practitioners in this state licensed pursuant to the enumerated RCW chapters; instead, it is permissible for the insurance contract to afford to those beneficiaries only the services of a designated list of named licensees practicing in a particular geographical area.
(1) RCW 36.33.065 does not authorize a board of county commissioners to establish a special fund for the payment of only a certain category of claims against a county; i.e., tort claims not covered by insurance; however, RCW 36.33.020, authorizing the creation of one or more county cumulative reserve funds for specified county purposes, does authorize a board of county commissioners to establish such a special county fund for the payment of tort claims not covered by insurance. (2) Except as provided by RCW 36.29.020, any interest earned through the investment of monies in a county cumulative reserve fund established under RCW 36.33.020, would properly be creditable to the cumulative reserve fund from which the particular investments were made.
The provisions of RCW 48.21.240, RCW 48.44.340 and RCW 48.46.290, requiring group disability insurers, health care service contractors, and health maintenance organizations, respectively, to offer supplemental coverage for mental health treatment by a physician, psychologist or community mental health agency unless waived by the contract holder, do allow those companies or organizations, acting in good faith in accordance with RCW 48.01.030, then to offer such coverage only by a physician or psychologist if the contract holder has first waived the mandated three‑part offering.
RCW 43.63.040 [46.63.040] does not vest a municipal or police court with jurisdiction over a traffic infraction based on an alleged violation of state law‑-as distinguished from one involving a local, municipal ordinance; therefore, such a court does not have exclusive, or even concurrent, jurisdiction over a traffic infraction case which is so based, even in the absence of a contract with the county to have those traffic infractions committed within the city or town adjudicated by a district court.