Washington is the only Northwest state that legislated child care insurance, and the only one that lets you decline it.

Washington's licence trigger is one child, which is the lowest threshold of the three Northwest states by a wide margin. The rule reads: "A license is required when an individual provides child care and early learning services in their family home: (a) Outside the child's home on a regular and ongoing basis for one or more children not related to the licensee; or (b) For preschool age children for more than four hours a day" (WAC 110-300-0010(3), chapter last updated July 1, 2026). Idaho's floor is seven children. Washington's is one.

The either/or that sits at the middle of the statute

RCW 43.216.700(2)(a) is the provision that matters, and it is worth reading in the order the legislature wrote it. A licensed family day care provider shall, at the time of licensure or renewal, either provide the department proof of day care insurance or other applicable insurance, or provide written notice of her insurance status on a standard department form to parents with an enrolled child, and keep a copy of the notice to each parent on file. The statute then says it outright: family day care providers may choose to opt out of the requirement to have day care or other applicable insurance, but must give parents the written notice.

That form is DCYF 15-894, "Liability Insurance Notice for Family Home Child Care." Its entire body is a pair of tick boxes and two signature lines, and the first box says the provider doesn't carry liability insurance. The pillar page quotes it in full.

One more clause is worth knowing, because it cuts against the intuition that opting out is an admission of something. Subsection (3) says that noncompliance or compliance with the section "shall not constitute evidence of liability or nonliability in any injury litigation." The statute deliberately keeps the licensing question out of the courtroom.

If you take the insurance route, this is what attaches

The number is $100,000 per occurrence, and it comes from a 1986 residual-market statute rather than from the child care code. RCW 48.88.050 requires the joint underwriting association to offer a policy with liability limits of at least one hundred thousand dollars per occurrence, and it hasn't been amended since it was enacted (RCW 48.88.050, 1986 c 141 s 5).

Three things about it are easy to get wrong.

• No aggregate is stated anywhere in the statute. The figure is per occurrence. Don't assume an annual cap, and don't assume there is not one on your actual policy.
• It reaches a family home only through the election. Subsection (2)(c) says liability limits "under (a)(i) of this subsection" are the ones in RCW 48.88.050. Subsection (a)(i) is the proof route. Take the notice route instead and no statutory limit applies to you.
• It hasn't moved in forty years. Whatever $100,000 bought in 1986, it doesn't buy the same defence and settlement today. Treat it as a floor written a long time ago rather than as a recommendation.

The proof timing also differs from what most summaries say. Family homes prove at licensure or renewal. The words "and at any inspection" appear in subsection (1), which covers centers and outdoor nature-based providers, and not in subsection (2). The family home versus center article takes that split apart properly.

Capacity in Washington is earned rather than granted

This is the other genuinely Washington thing about running a family home here, and it has a coverage consequence. The department issues initial or nonexpiring family home licences for up to 12 children, and how many you actually get depends on how long you have been doing it (WAC 110-300-0355).

With less than one year of experience, a licensee may request a capacity of up to six children, with a maximum of three under two years of age. With at least one year but less than two, working alone, up to eight children aged two through 12 with no more than four under three. With a qualified assistant at that same experience level, up to nine children from birth through 12 with no more than four under two. With at least two years and working alone, up to 10 children aged three through 12. The rule continues past that point; we are only stating the tiers we read directly (WAC 110-300-0355).

Counting is broad. Any child from birth through 12 on the premises, signed in, on an off-site trip or being transported counts toward capacity, including the licensee's own children, the children of staff, and visiting children who are not accompanied by an adult.

Above 12 there is a waiver. RCW 43.216.692 lets the department waive the 12-child limit, and the implementing rule requires at least three years of experience, a full nonexpiring family home licence, and documentation from the city or county that the program's space and structures meet local building codes. A denial of a waiver request is not an enforcement action and cannot be appealed (WAC 110-300-0358).

Why this belongs on an insurance page: the tier that unlocks nine children is the one that adds a qualified assistant. That is the moment a solo provider becomes an employer in fact, and the questions about who is an insured, and about workers compensation, arrive with it.

What happens if coverage stops, and what parents are entitled to see

Washington is the only one of the three states that builds any insurance visibility into the rules, and it does it in three small places.

Termination has to be reported. If the liability insurance described in RCW 43.216.700 is terminated, the licensee or the program's director or supervisor must notify the department within 30 calendar days of the termination date (WAC 110-300-0425(10), filed April 14, 2026, effective May 15, 2026). Note what that is and is not: it is a reporting duty attached to whatever coverage you had, not a duty to replace it.

Parents get a pointer. The parent handbook rules require the licensee to describe where a parent may find and review the program's liability insurance (WAC 110-300-0450, same filing).

Records get kept. The record retention rule lists a car insurance policy "if applicable" among the records a licensee keeps (WAC 110-300-0465), which is the transport question rather than the liability one. That sits on the transporting children page.

None of the three sets a limit, a form or a coverage standard. WAC 110-300 is a proof, notice and retention regime that points back at the statute for everything substantive.

What Washington has in common with Oregon and Idaho

The material that is true in all three states lives on the family child care pillar rather than being repeated here: the home policy business-use problem, the fact that abuse and molestation coverage sits outside every Northwest licence, and the fact that no state in the region requires a child care operator to post a surety bond. The differences are on the sibling pages. Oregon requires nothing and discloses nothing, and Idaho leaves most home providers outside the licensing system entirely.

Richard Sweet, owner of Vantage Point Risk and an independent insurance advisor. Last reviewed August 10, 2026. How we review this.