This bill adds a new section to chapter 7.70 RCW that prohibits a settlement demand or offer made by a party before mandatory mediation (under RCW 7.70.100) from being set to expire before the parties have made a good faith appearance at that mandatory mediation. The bill includes legislative findings about difficulties in health care litigation, rising medical malpractice insurance costs, the importance of patient safety, and that mandatory mediation often occurs late in litigation or shortly before trial. Legally, this is a procedural change: it creates a new statutory restriction on the timing of pre-mediation settlement demands or offers in actions subject to mandatory mediation. It affects parties to actions covered by RCW 7.70.100 and references health care providers, patients, and certain physician specialties (obstetrics, anesthesiology, emergency room practice) in its findings. The bill was read for the first time on January 23, 2025, and was referred to the Civil Rights & Judiciary committee. The extracted text does not define key terms such as "settlement demand or offer" or "good faith attendance," and it does not include an effective date, any enforcement mechanism or penalties, nor the text of RCW 7.70.100 to confirm the precise scope of covered actions. It is therefore unclear how these terms will be interpreted, whether there are exceptions, or how the new section will interact with existing procedures.

If enacted, settlement offers made before the mandatory mediation required under RCW 7.70.100 would have to remain available until the parties have actually attended the mediation in good faith. That will most directly affect plaintiffs and defendants in health care claims (including physicians in obstetrics, anesthesiology, and emergency medicine), and their insurers and lawyers, by removing the ability to use short, pre-mediation expiration dates to force quick acceptances before mediation occurs. Practically, parties will have less pressure to accept or reject early offers before mediation, which may increase the chance offers are negotiated or accepted at mediation and change insurers’ and defense counsel’s timing and negotiation tactics; it could modestly change when cases resolve but may also leave insurers exposed to offers for a longer period. Key details are missing from the text provided — notably what counts as “good faith attendance,” how the rule would be enforced, any exceptions, and the effective date — so the exact operational effects and compliance risks are uncertain.