Creates a new section in chapter 48.30 RCW that prohibits any person from soliciting, coercing, requiring, or contracting with an insured to assign or transfer post-loss property insurance benefits (including rights against the insurer or proceeds) to a person providing services related to the insured property. Such assignment agreements are declared void and unenforceable. The prohibition does not apply to a licensed public adjuster retained under a written agreement to represent only the policyholder's financial interest, an attorney retained under a written contingency fee agreement permitted by the rules of professional conduct, assignments to a federally insured financial institution, mortgagee, or subsequent purchaser of the property, or to liability coverage under personal or commercial insurance policies. The bill also states nothing in the section prevents an insured from authorizing payment to, or paying, a person for services, materials, or things that may be covered by the policy. The Insurance Commissioner is authorized, upon cause to believe a violation occurred, to take actions available under RCW 48.02.080 and to impose a civil fine of $50,000 per violation, with fines payable to the state general fund. The bill defines "assignment agreement" and references existing statutory definitions for "property insurance" and "public adjuster" in RCW 48.11.040 and RCW 48.17.010. This is a new statutory prohibition with a civil enforcement mechanism and penalty; it does not create a criminal offense in the provided text. The extracted text does not include the full language of the referenced RCW sections (48.02.080, 48.11.040, 48.17.010), does not define the term "person," does not specify the "rules of professional conduct," and does not show how the new section interacts with other provisions of chapter 48.30 RCW.

If enacted, the bill would remove the option for vendors like restoration contractors, inspectors, and similar service providers to take an insured's post‑loss property insurance benefits as payment by requiring or contracting an assignment of the claim; those assignment agreements would be void. Policyholders would still be able to hire a licensed public adjuster under a written agreement or an attorney under a written contingency agreement allowed by professional rules, and lenders or federally insured mortgagees and subsequent purchasers could still hold assignments, so the biggest practical change falls on service providers who relied on claim assignments as their payment method — they would likely need to obtain payment directly from the insured or change business practices to avoid relying on transferred claim proceeds. The Insurance Commissioner could investigate alleged violations and levy fines of $50,000 per violation payable to the state general fund, creating a material compliance risk and potential cost for anyone who tries to use assignment agreements that the law forbids. Key implementation details are not shown in the extracted facts — the bill points to other statutes and professional rules for definitions and enforcement powers, so the exact scope of who counts as a "person," how investigations would proceed, and how attorney fee arrangements are treated in practice remain unclear.