Washington Bill Would Require Arbitration for Late-Filed Tort Claims

Supporters say it could curb rising liability costs, but critics warn of re-traumatizing survivors and reducing public accountability.

Published on Feb. 21, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A proposed bill in the Washington state legislature, SB 6239, would require many long-delayed tort claims to go through arbitration before reaching the court system. Supporters argue it would help curb rising liability and insurance costs for counties and school districts, while critics caution it could suppress serious claims and force survivors to revisit traumatic experiences.

Why it matters

The bill is aimed at addressing the growing financial pressures on local governments and public entities due to rising liability and insurance costs. However, survivor advocates warn that mandatory arbitration could re-traumatize claimants and reduce public accountability by moving disputes into a less visible forum.

The details

SB 6239 would make arbitration mandatory for tort claims filed more than ten years after an incident, or more than ten years after a claimant turns 18 if the harm occurred when they were a minor. Arbitration would remain optional for other kinds of claims. The measure keeps a path to court intact, allowing any arbitration award to be appealed and a full trial to be held. Supporters argue arbitration could trim procedural expenses, while critics say it could duplicate proceedings and shift more costs onto claimants.

  • SB 6239 was introduced in the Washington state legislature in 2026.
  • The Senate Ways & Means Committee held a hearing on the bill on February 5, 2026.
  • The Senate Ways & Means Committee has amended SB 6239 and advanced a substitute version, which is now on second reading in the Senate.

The players

SB 6239

A bill in the Washington state legislature that would require many long-delayed tort claims to go through arbitration before reaching the court system.

Washington State Association of Counties

An organization that has told legislators that liability and insurance costs are climbing fast and threatening core public services.

Washington Counties Risk Pool

An organization that has argued that requiring arbitration for older claims could trim procedural expenses and help stabilize budgets.

Schroeter Goldmark & Bender

A plaintiff firm that has urged legislators to reject SB 6239 and called for a survivor-centered alternative.

Tacoma Weekly

A local news publication that has reported on the bill and the debate surrounding it.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We must not let individuals continue to damage private property in San Francisco.”

— Robert Jenkins, San Francisco resident (San Francisco Chronicle)

“Fifty years is such an accomplishment in San Francisco, especially with the way the city has changed over the years.”

— Gordon Edgar, grocery employee (Instagram)

What’s next

The Senate Ways & Means Committee has amended SB 6239 and advanced a substitute version, and the bill now sits on second reading in the Senate. Lawmakers will have to hash out key practical questions, including who would pay for arbitration and how complex historical abuse claims would be managed, if the measure keeps moving through the Legislature.

The takeaway

This bill highlights the tension between efforts to curb rising liability costs for local governments and the concerns of survivor advocates who fear mandatory arbitration could re-traumatize claimants and reduce public accountability. The outcome will depend on how lawmakers balance these competing interests.