Insurance disputes usually come down to a gap between what the policy promises and how the carrier applies it after a loss. In Washington, these cases are not just “contract disagreements.” They are governed by a set of statutory and regulatory rules that can create meaningful leverage when an insurer unreasonably denies coverage, underpays, delays, or mishandles a claim.

This office handles first-party and select defense-side insurance matters, with an emphasis on claims where the legal framework matters: auto coverage disputes (including UIM/UM), property losses, flood claims with federal rules, and health-insurance denials—including denials involving gender-affirming care. In Washington, there are several considerations that come to mind in insurance disputes:

1. The policy is a contract—but Washington imposes extra duties. Washington recognizes that insurers owe duties of good faith in claims handling, and policyholders can pursue claims beyond pure breach of contract when claim handling is unreasonable or unfair. Washington courts have recognized the availability of bad-faith and Consumer Protection Act theories in the insurance context.

2. IFCA: a fee-shifting statute for unreasonable denials (first-party). The Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA) provides that certain policy holders who are unreasonably denied a claim for coverage or payment of benefits may sue for actual damages and may recover attorneys’ fees and litigation costs.

3. Unfair claims-handling regulations. Washington’s unfair claims settlement practices regulation defines specific prohibited conduct—misrepresenting policy provisions, failing to respond promptly, failing to conduct a reasonable investigation, and related practices—commonly litigated as part of bad-faith/CPA/IFCA theories.

4. Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The CPA broadly prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce and is frequently pleaded alongside insurance bad-faith theories when the facts support it.

5. Flood insurance (NFIP/SFIP). Flood claims written under the National Flood Insurance Program are governed by federal regulation. Deadlines and “proof of loss” requirements are strictly applied, and flood insurance claims can turn on technical compliance rather than general notions of fairness. If you have suffered a loss covered by a Standard Flood Insurance Policy, you need to do everything you can to ensure you comply with all relevant guidelines. Otherwise, all of your claims may be denied outright and you will have very little recourse.

In addition to insurance disputes related to roadway accidents, including underinsured and uninsured motorist coverages, our firm handles property-loss disputes, flood and mixed-water losses, and health insurance denials, including those for gender-affirming care. Most of these disputes pivot on a familiar set of pressure points. Insurers may

1. Focus on missing documentation or gaps in care;

2. Frame the dispute as medical necessity or preexisting condition rather than coverage;

3. Characterize delays as “investigation” while extending timelines;

4. Narrow the claim through selective policy readings or disputed exclusions; and

5. In property claims, dispute scope and pricing through competing estimates and causation experts.

Washington’s claims-handling regulations provide a framework for evaluating whether an insurer’s process was reasonable and prompt. IFCA can add real teeth in first-party unreasonable-denial cases through fee shifting. And when federal programs apply (NFIP), procedural precision becomes central to the case from day one.

Coverage disputes involving gender-affirming care are also won or lost in the details: how “medical necessity” is documented, whether parity principles are applied consistently, how exclusions are drafted and enforced. Fortunately, Washington has enacted statutory protections addressing coverage for gender-affirming treatment in certain health plans, and Washington insurance policies cannot discriminately deny you medically necessary care simply because it is gender-affirming. In this area, an LGBTQ+ and trans-informed attorney adds value here because these claims require (1) fluency with how gender-affirming care is commonly coded and reviewed, (2) comfort working with providers and medical records in a way that preserves privacy and dignity, and (3) experience building an administrative and litigation record that forces a carrier to defend its rationale—rather than relying on ambiguity, delay, or inconsistent standards.