Washington Tort Study Committee Report: Damage Limits and Liability Changes Head to the 2027 Session

Washington's Tort Study Committee has delivered its report to the Legislature, and its recommendations for cutting the state's record lawsuit payouts include limiting damages in some cases, changing how liability is split when several parties share fault, and reviewing past claims so the same harms are not repeated. The report was due November 1, 2026, it was not unanimous, and it sets up a 2027 legislative fight over claims against the state, most of which come from children harmed in foster care, juvenile detention and other state custody.

The stakes are large. Washington paid $537 million to resolve tort claims and lawsuits in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2026, a record and more than five times what it paid five years earlier. The Department of Enterprise Services now says the state liability account needs roughly $1.275 billion more over the next two-year budget. The Washington tort study committee report is the document lawmakers will use to decide whether the answer is more money, fewer harms, narrower liability, or some mix. What follows sets out what is known about the report, the five-member dissent, the legal limits on what lawmakers can do, the failed 2026 arbitration bill, and what the debate means for personal injury firms, defense counsel, public-entity insurers and litigation funders.

What did Washington's Tort Study Committee recommend?

According to KUOW's November 5, 2026 report, the committee's recommendations fall into three groups:

1. Prevention through claims review. Studying past claims to find where harm happens, and using that data to stop it from happening again.
2. Multi-party liability. Changing what happens when more than one party is responsible for an injury. In Washington that means the joint and several liability exceptions in RCW 4.22.070, discussed below.
3. Damage limits. Limiting damages in some categories of cases, without, in the public reporting so far, a stated dollar figure.

Earlier reporting by The Spokesman-Review, from August and October, described a longer draft list. It included a shorter statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims, a narrower standard of care that would reduce the situations in which the state can be held liable, and a cap on the percentage of a recovery that plaintiffs' attorneys can take as a contingency fee. It is not yet public which of those options made the final majority report and in what form. At the time of writing, the Office of Administrative Hearings committee page listed meeting materials only through the August 12 meeting, including a July 15 outline draft, and the final text had not been posted there. This article attributes the recommendation content to that reporting and will not guess at numbers that have not been published.

Two features are already clear. The report is advisory: nothing in it changes the law until the Legislature passes a bill and the governor signs it. And the report is split, with a five-member minority report pushing a different approach.

Why are Washington State's lawsuit payouts so high?

The short answer is the child welfare system. Most of the money goes to claims against the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), which runs foster care and juvenile detention. The Department of Enterprise Services, which manages the state's self-insurance program, attributed about $388 million of fiscal 2026 costs to DCYF claims, according to the Washington State Standard.

Three legal facts explain why Washington is more exposed than many states:

• Broad waiver of sovereign immunity. Since 1961, RCW 4.92.090 has made the state liable for its tortious conduct to the same extent as a private person or corporation. Many states keep damages caps or immunities for public entities. Washington largely does not.
• A recognized duty to children in state care. In H.B.H. v. State, 192 Wn.2d 154 (2018), the Washington Supreme Court held that the state's child welfare agency has a special relationship with foster children and owes them a duty of reasonable care to protect them from abuse by foster parents. That ruling opened the door to negligence claims over placement and supervision.
• Longer windows for abuse claims. Childhood sexual abuse claims run under RCW 4.16.340, which has a discovery-based limitations period. In 2024, the Legislature went further in Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1618 (Chapter 253, Laws of 2024): for abuse occurring on or after June 6, 2024, there is no time limit at all. Many current claims involve abuse decades ago, in institutions the state ran.

Add jury verdicts in the tens of millions in institutional abuse cases and a self-insurance fund that was not built for them, and the result is a budget problem that both parties in Olympia now treat as structural.

How much does Washington pay in lawsuit settlements each year?

The numbers have moved quickly. The table below collects the figures reported by the Washington State Standard, The Spokesman-Review and state budget documents.

Measure	Amount	Period / date	Source
Tort claims and lawsuit payouts	about $100 million	FY2021 (July 2020-June 2021)	Spokesman-Review, Washington State Standard
Tort claims and lawsuit payouts	about $500 million	FY2025 (July 2024-June 2025)	Spokesman-Review
Tort claims and lawsuit payouts (record)	$537 million	FY2026 (July 2025-June 2026)	Washington State Standard, OPB
DCYF share of costs	about $388 million	FY2026	Department of Enterprise Services, via Standard
Defense, AG and insurance costs on top of payouts	about $76 million to $90 million	FY2026	Seattle Times (as relayed); Standard
Outstanding liability estimate	$4.4 billion	as of end of June 2026	Actuarial analysis, via Standard
Projected payouts	$1.3 billion	FY2027-29 biennium	Actuarial analysis, via Standard
Base liability account funding	$360 million	FY2027-29	Department of Enterprise Services
Additional funding requested	about $1.275 billion	September 2026 request	Department of Enterprise Services

Two caveats. First, the defense-cost figure depends on what is counted: the $76 million number covers legal defense, while the roughly $90 million figure also includes Attorney General work, outside counsel and related insurance. That is why some outlets put the total cost near $614 million and others nearer $627 million. Second, the $1.275 billion request covers both a gap of about $940 million against base funding and the current year's deficit. Lawmakers already put more than $1 billion into the account in 2026.

Local governments face a similar squeeze. A July 13, 2026 white paper from the Washington State Association of Counties reported that claims to the Washington Counties Risk Pool rose more than 60% since 2021 and that liability premiums rose more than 380%. Coverage disagrees on the baseline year for the premium figure, so treat it as a direction rather than a precise number.

Who sits on the Tort Study Committee, and what did the Legislature ask it to do?

The committee was created by a budget proviso, Section 135(6) of the 2026 supplemental operating budget, and convened by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Its charge was to recommend changes to the current system and processes for claims against the state, its officers, employees and volunteers, and its political subdivisions, for damages arising from tortious conduct. It began meeting June 3, 2026 and had to report by November 1.

The committee has 14 members drawn from both sides of the bar and from government. The OAH roster includes Alexander Dietz, a partner at Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala, a Seattle plaintiffs' firm known for institutional abuse cases; Brian Baker of the Attorney General's Torts Division; Jason Siems of the state Office of Risk Management; Julie Watts of DCYF; and Amber Leaders, director of legal and contract services at the Office of Financial Management. Victim advocates and representatives of local governments and school districts fill out the rest.

Membership became its own controversy. State Sen. Darya Farivar, D-Seattle, who sponsored the law requiring people with lived experience to be included on bodies like this one, said in October that no survivors were on the committee. Dietz said the same thing. Gov. Bob Ferguson's office responded that the makeup met the terms of the budget proviso and that the committee was considering recommending broader claimant representation in future policy work.

What is the minority report from the Tort Study Committee?

Five members signed a minority report, which The Center Square obtained before the majority report reached lawmakers. Its central argument is that the way to lower state liability is to reduce harm, particularly the abuse and neglect of children in state care, rather than to limit what injured people can recover.

The minority report echoed concerns raised by two staff members of the Washington State Association for Justice (WSAJ), the state's trial lawyers' association. Leah Griffin argued that the committee needed members with lived experience under the state's "Nothing About Us Without Us" law. Kelli Carson, WSAJ's government affairs director, said the discussion should lead with harm prevention instead of payouts. Farivar asked that any minority report be allowed to include a full dissenting opinion.

KUOW reported that the Sexual Violence Law Center had a member who contributed to the dissent. The center's executive director, Riddhi Mukhopadhyay, called tort reform "the wrong lens" for addressing the cost problem.

The practical significance of the split is political. A unanimous report would have given legislative leaders cover to move a package quickly. A five-member dissent, with the plaintiffs' bar and survivor advocates on the minority side, signals that any bill limiting damages or shortening limitations periods will be contested in committee and on the floor.

Will Washington cap damages in lawsuits against the state?

Possibly, but any cap faces a serious constitutional obstacle. In Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 112 Wn.2d 636 (1989), the Washington Supreme Court struck down the Legislature's 1986 cap on noneconomic damages, holding that it violated the right to a jury trial under Article I, Section 21 of the state constitution because it took away the jury's role in setting damages. Later efforts to cap medical malpractice damages, including a 2005 ballot measure proposing a $350,000 noneconomic cap, did not produce a lasting cap.

That history shapes what a damages limit could look like. Lawmakers have more room to define the scope of the state's own waiver of sovereign immunity than to cap private tort damages, and drafters may try to frame any limit as a condition of the RCW 4.92.090 waiver rather than a cap on jury awards. Whether that framing survives Sofie would almost certainly be litigated. Other possible routes include limits on specific categories such as prejudgment interest, structured payment of large judgments, or caps on punitive-style enhancements. Washington generally does not allow punitive damages without a statute, so the main targets would be noneconomic damages and economic projections.

For practitioners, the point is that "limiting damages in some cases" is easy to write in a report and hard to enact in a form that the Washington Supreme Court will uphold.

Does Washington have joint and several liability for government defendants?

Partly. RCW 4.22.070, part of the 1986 tort reform act, replaced joint and several liability with proportionate liability as the general rule: each defendant pays its own percentage of fault. The statute keeps joint and several liability in listed exceptions, including where defendants acted in concert, where one acted as the agent or servant of another, and where the plaintiff is found free of fault. In that last situation, defendants against whom judgment is entered are jointly and severally liable for the total of the plaintiffs' damages. Separate exceptions cover hazardous substances, and Sofie treated asbestos claims as falling within that exception.

The fault-free plaintiff exception is the one that matters most for claims against the state. A child abused in a foster home is almost never assigned fault. If a foster parent and DCYF are both defendants, the state can end up paying the share of an abuser who has no money, even if a jury put most of the fault on the abuser. Counties make the same argument: the WSAC white paper says taxpayers end up paying large judgments even when government conduct played a small part, and it lists strict proportionate liability as a reform option.

Changing that rule for government defendants is likely what KUOW's description of "altering what happens when multiple parties are liable" refers to. It would not cap any award, so it avoids the Sofie problem, but it would shift uncollectable shares from the state to injured plaintiffs.

What happened to SB 6239, the Washington tort claims arbitration bill?

SB 6239, sponsored by Sen. Manka Dhingra, D-Redmond, was the 2026 session's main attempt to slow the payouts, and its failure is why the committee exists. As introduced, it would have required tort claims against the state and its subdivisions to go through civil arbitration before trial. After opposition from trial lawyers and survivor advocates, it was rewritten. The engrossed version, E2SSB 6239, which passed the Senate on February 17, 2026, would have:

• created a claims commission within the Office of Administrative Hearings to decide claims against the state and its subdivisions;
• made arbitration mandatory for older claims (generally those brought more than 10 years after the incident or after the claimant reached adulthood) and optional for newer claims;
• preserved a trial de novo with a right to a jury; and
• required legislative hearings after any judgment or settlement over $5 million.

The bill was then pulled from a House committee agenda before the cutoff. House Speaker Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma, said it was "just really not in a position to move forward this year," and suggested it could start interim discussions about proposals for 2027. The OFM fiscal note said the bill might reduce defense costs and speed resolution, but that savings were uncertain because most claims already settle.

For readers who follow mass arbitration, SB 6239 is a useful reminder that "arbitration" in this setting is a public, statutory process with a guaranteed jury trial afterward, not a private Arbitration Agreement of the kind the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governs. Its purpose was to sort claims early, not to waive the jury.

Reform options compared with current Washington law

Issue	Current Washington law	Option reported in committee discussions	Main legal risk
Damages	No cap on compensatory damages against the state; 1986 noneconomic cap struck in Sofie (1989)	Limit damages in some cases	Article I, Section 21 jury right
Multi-party fault	Proportionate liability, but joint and several where plaintiff is fault-free (RCW 4.22.070)	Change allocation when several parties are liable	Policy fight; shifts uncollectable shares to plaintiffs
Abuse limitations period	Discovery-based period (RCW 4.16.340); no limit for abuse on or after June 6, 2024 (HB 1618)	Shorter period for childhood sexual abuse claims	Retroactivity and due process challenges if applied to existing claims
Standard of care	State owes duty to foster children (H.B.H., 2018); liable as a private party (RCW 4.92.090)	Narrow when the state can be held liable	Conflicts with existing case law; requires clear statutory text
Attorney fees	Reasonableness under RPC 1.5; no general statutory percentage cap	Cap the percentage attorneys can take	Access-to-counsel arguments; separation of powers over lawyer regulation
Claims process	Pre-suit tort claim filing under RCW 4.92, then court	Claims review for prevention; SB 6239-style commission or arbitration	Low; prevention is the least contested option

What happens next with Washington tort reform in 2027?

The 2027 session opens in January and runs as a long, 105-day budget session. Three tracks will run in parallel.

Budget. Whatever happens to tort law, the Legislature must fund the liability account. The Department of Enterprise Services request of about $1.275 billion will be part of Gov. Ferguson's December budget proposal, and it competes with every other program in a tight budget year. Prospective reforms would do little to reduce the $4.4 billion of liability already outstanding.

Bills. Expect at least one bill drawn from the majority report and a revived version of SB 6239. Dhingra and Jinkins have both treated 2027 as the target year. The fault-allocation change is the most likely to move, because it avoids the Sofie jury-right problem and has strong backing from counties and cities.

Prevention. Both the majority and minority reports support studying past claims to prevent future harm. That is the most likely area of agreement, and it may come with funding for DCYF case management, licensing and oversight that both sides can support.

What it means for personal injury firms and other stakeholders

For plaintiffs' firms handling institutional abuse and government claims. Washington is one of the most active markets in the country for claims against state agencies, and the Washington tort study committee report is the first official signal of how the Legislature may narrow it. The most immediate risk is to case value through fault allocation rather than caps. Firms with large inventories of DCYF and juvenile detention claims should track whether any change would apply to pending claims or only to future causes of action, since retroactive application would invite constitutional challenges.

For defense counsel and the Attorney General's Office. A shift away from joint and several liability would change settlement math in cases with insolvent co-defendants. Until any bill passes, current law controls, and the political pressure of the budget does not change the verdict risk in front of a jury.

For counties, cities, school districts and risk pools. Local governments are pushing hardest for allocation reform. Risk pools and excess carriers will price 2027 renewals on current law, and any reform will take years to show up in claims data.

For litigation funders. A contingency fee cap or damages limit would change the economics of Third-Party Litigation Funding in Washington abuse cases, where cases take years and costs are high. Funders backing portfolios of government claims should model current law and a fault-allocation scenario separately.

For survivor advocates. The minority report gives the plaintiffs' side a formal document to cite in hearings. The membership dispute may also produce procedural changes, including more claimant representation on future study bodies.

FAQ

What is the Washington Tort Study Committee?

It is a 14-member advisory committee created by Section 135(6) of Washington's 2026 supplemental budget and convened by the Office of Administrative Hearings. It was asked to recommend changes to how tort claims against the state and local governments are handled, and its report was due November 1, 2026.

What did Washington's Tort Study Committee recommend?

As reported by KUOW on November 5, 2026, its recommendations include reviewing past claims to prevent future harm, changing how liability is allocated among multiple defendants, and limiting damages in some cases. Draft options also included shorter limitations periods for childhood sexual abuse claims and limits on attorney fees.

Why are Washington State's lawsuit payouts so high?

Most payouts come from claims that children were abused or neglected in foster care, juvenile detention and other DCYF settings. Washington's broad waiver of sovereign immunity, the duty recognized in H.B.H. v. State (2018) and long limitations periods for abuse claims all raise the state's exposure.

How much does Washington pay in lawsuit settlements each year?

Washington paid a record $537 million in fiscal 2026, compared with about $100 million in fiscal 2021. The state projects $1.3 billion in payouts for the 2027-29 biennium and estimates outstanding liability at $4.4 billion.

Will Washington cap damages in lawsuits against the state?

Not yet. The committee floated limiting damages in some cases, but no bill has passed, and the Washington Supreme Court struck down a noneconomic damages cap in Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp. (1989), so any cap would face a constitutional challenge.

What happened to SB 6239?

SB 6239 passed the Senate on February 17, 2026 in a revised form that would have created a claims commission and required arbitration for older claims, but it stalled in the House. Leaders expect a new version in the 2027 session.