(a) Rule. Persons having claims against the plaintiff may be joined as defendants and required to interplead when their claims are such that the plaintiff is or may be exposed to double or multiple liability. It is not ground for objection to the joinder that the claims of the several claimants or the titles on which their claims depend do not have a common origin or are not identical but are adverse to and independent of one another, or that the plaintiff avers that the plaintiff is not liable in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants. A defendant exposed to similar liability may obtain such interpleader by way of cross claim or counterclaim. The provisions of this rule supplement and do not in any way limit the joinder of parties permitted under other rules and statutes.
Rule 22.Interpleader
Group 4: Parties · Last amended April 28, 2015 · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 22 lets a plaintiff facing competing claims to the same money or property force the rival claimants into one lawsuit and let the court sort out who is entitled to it, without having to litigate each claim separately.
Full Text of Rule 22
(b) Statutes. The remedy herein provided is in addition to and in no way supersedes or limits the remedy provided by RCW 4.08.150 to 4.08.180, inclusive.
Amendment History
Adopted May 5, 1967, effective July 1, 1967; amended, effective April 28, 2015.
Plain-English Summary
Interpleader solves a specific headache: someone holds money or property, and two or more people claim it, and paying the wrong one could mean paying twice. Rule 22 lets that person — usually the plaintiff, but sometimes a defendant facing the same problem through a cross-claim or counterclaim — join all the rival claimants as defendants and require them to fight it out between themselves.
The rule strips away some of the usual objections to that kind of joinder. It doesn't matter that the claimants' theories have nothing in common, or that their claims are adverse and unrelated to each other rather than sharing some common root. It doesn't even matter that the plaintiff insists it owes nothing to some or all of the claimants — exposure to the possibility of double or multiple liability is enough to justify interpleader.
Rule 22 doesn't replace other ways of joining parties or claims; it adds to them. And it works alongside the state's interpleader statutes rather than displacing them — Rule 22(b) makes clear that the remedy here supplements, and doesn't limit, the statutory remedy under RCW 4.08.150 through 4.08.180.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is interpleader for?
It lets someone who might owe the same money or property to more than one claimant force all the claimants into a single case, so the court decides who's entitled to it instead of the holder facing separate lawsuits and possibly paying twice.
Do the competing claims have to be related to each other?
No. Rule 22 specifically allows interpleader even when the claimants' claims don't share a common origin and are adverse to and independent of one another.
Can a defendant use Rule 22, or only a plaintiff?
A defendant facing the same risk of double or multiple liability can obtain interpleader too, by way of a cross-claim or counterclaim.
Does Rule 22 replace the interpleader statutes?
No. Rule 22(b) says the rule's remedy is in addition to, and doesn't supersede or limit, the remedy already provided by RCW 4.08.150 through 4.08.180.
Can the plaintiff deny owing anything to the claimants and still use interpleader?
Yes. The rule allows interpleader even where the plaintiff avers it isn't liable, in whole or in part, to any or all of the claimants.
Source & verification. Rule text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Washington Superior Court Civil Rules, adopted by the
Supreme Court of Washington. Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: interpleader rulecompeting claims to same funddouble liability joinderstakeholder lawsuit washington