Washington Bill Aims to Limit Tort Claims Against State, Local Governments

Proposed legislation would require arbitration before jury trials for child victims, raising concerns over accountability and access to justice.

Published on Feb. 10, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A bill advancing in the Washington state legislature would require plaintiffs under a certain age or after a certain time period to go through arbitration before receiving a jury trial in tort claims against state and local governments. Supporters say the bill will reduce costs for local governments, while child sex abuse advocates argue it shields agencies from accountability and makes it harder for victims to seek justice.

Why it matters

The bill is part of a broader debate over balancing the financial concerns of local governments with the rights of victims, especially vulnerable populations like children who have experienced abuse or neglect while in state custody. Critics argue the legislation undermines transparency and the public's ability to hold government agencies accountable.

The details

Senate Bill 6239 would require tort claims filed more than 10 years after an incident or 10 years after the claimant reached adulthood to go through arbitration before advancing to a jury trial. Supporters say this will cut costs associated with tort claims, but the actual savings are unclear. The bill has been amended to require arbitrators be trained on victim-centered and trauma-informed practices, and to mandate a study on the legislation's effectiveness.

  • The bill is currently advancing through the Washington state legislature.
  • A public hearing on the bill was held on February 5, 2026 in the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

The players

Senate Bill 6239

The proposed legislation that would require arbitration before jury trials in certain tort claims against state and local governments in Washington.

Debbie Silverman

An attorney with Osland Undo Little who testified against the bill, arguing it would make it harder for child sex abuse survivors to seek justice.

Paul Jewell

A representative of the Washington State Association of Counties who testified that liability and insurance costs are a major financial pressure for counties, and that the bill doesn't fully address their concerns.

Brad Tower

A representative of the Washington Risk Pool who supported the bill, arguing it would lead to a more efficient process and allow a focus on making injured parties whole.

Kelli Carson

With the Washington State Association for Justice, who warned the committee that the bill raises constitutional concerns about access to the courts, and advocated for a sunset clause and a victim-centered approach.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“This bill doesn't delay justice, it raises the cost of speaking at all. This bill targets the most vulnerable people in our civil justice system, survivors of childhood sexual abuse. It moves these cases out of public view, away from juries, away from community judgment, and away from the sunlight.”

— Debbie Silverman, Attorney, Osland Undo Little (dailyfly.com)

“Liability and insurance costs were one of the primary drivers that have contributed to the financial pressure their counties are now facing.”

— Paul Jewell, Representative, Washington State Association of Counties (dailyfly.com)

“I would presume that the cost savings for this is going to be in a more efficient process of getting to justice, which will save us those process costs and allows us to focus on making injured parties whole.”

— Brad Tower, Representative, Washington Risk Pool (dailyfly.com)

What’s next

The bill has been amended to require arbitrators be trained on victim-centered and trauma-informed practices, and to mandate a study on the legislation's effectiveness. The Senate Ways and Means Committee has given the bill a 'do pass' recommendation, and it will now move forward in the legislative process.

The takeaway

This bill highlights the ongoing tension between the financial concerns of local governments and the rights of victims, especially vulnerable populations like children who have experienced abuse or neglect. While supporters argue the legislation will reduce costs, critics contend it undermines transparency and accountability, making it harder for victims to seek justice.