Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2043636-1-II%20%20Published%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,770 chars

with WAC 296- 15- 121( 8)( b) termination requirements; and ( 2) further supports the superior

court' s finding that Dellen did not terminate its self -insured status, but instead was in default.

3. Failure to pay assessments

WAC 296- 15- 121( 8)( d) also requires a former self -insured employer to pay insolvency

trust assessments for three years after surrender or withdrawal of its self -insured certificate.

Nothing in the WAC or Title 51 RCW states that the Department must give a former self insured
-

employer notice when that employer fails to pay a required assessment; on the contrary, the
30
regulations state only that a former insured
self - employer has a duty to pay assessments

regardless of whether it receives notice from the Department. Absent any authority requiring the

Department to give a former self -insured employer notice of failure to pay an assessment,

Dellen' s argument fails. The record shows that Dellen failed to pay any assessments after

30
See former WAC 296- 15- 221( 4)( a)( iii)(B) ( 2001) ( employers no longer self insured
- must pay
adjusted assessment rate until one year after all self -insurance liabilities and responsibilities are
terminated); former WAC 296- 15- 221( 4)( a)( iv)( B) ( 2001) ( self -
insurers must maintain minimum
balance of $ 200, 000 in their " second injury fund "); RCW 51. 14. 077; former WAC 296- 15 -
221( 4)( a)( v) ( 2001) (
insolvency trust members who voluntarily surrender their self -insurance
certificates must continue to pay an assessment for three years after the date of surrender).

20
             

No. 43636 -1 - II

January 2002. Thus, we hold substantial evidence supports the superior court' s finding that