How this estimate is built
Your medical expenses and lost wages are your economic damages. We apply the multiplier method, the industry-standard approach, to estimate noneconomic damages — then apply Washington's comparative fault rule, with no cap standing in the way of the result.
Pure comparative negligence: fault never bars recovery
Under RCW 4.22.005, Washington follows pure comparative negligence — a claimant can recover even if found 99% at fault. Recovery is simply reduced by the claimant's own percentage of fault and is never barred entirely, regardless of how high that percentage climbs. Washington adopted this approach by statute in 1973, replacing the harsh contributory-negligence bar that once blocked recovery for any plaintiff with even minimal fault. Liability among defendants is generally several, not joint, under RCW 4.22.070, with limited statutory exceptions.
A damages cap that was struck down — and never came back
In 1989, the Washington Supreme Court decided Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., striking down a 1986 legislative cap on noneconomic damages — based on a formula multiplying the state's average annual wage, 0.43, and the plaintiff's life expectancy — as unconstitutional. The court held the cap violated Article I, Section 21 of the Washington Constitution, the right to trial by jury, because the amount of damages, especially noneconomic damages, is a factual question belonging to the jury. The legislature later formally repealed the statute. Several attempts since to reinstate a cap, including one that would have required a constitutional amendment first, have all failed.
A powerful remedy against bad-faith insurers
Washington imposes a heightened duty of good faith on insurers under RCW 48.01.030, and the Insurance Fair Conduct Act (RCW 48.30.015) gives claimants significant remedies — including treble damages and attorney's fees — against an insurer that acts unreasonably in handling a claim.