From what you are stating, this would appear to be a valid modification of the tenancy, with sufficient notice for you to end the tenancy before the effective date if the modification were not acceptable to you.
You have not shared the language of the rental insurance notice requirement with us. If the provision requires that you purchase rental insurance but, either on its own or in association with the remainder of the lease, does not provide for any financial penalty for your failure to do so, then the fine is not appropriate. If there is provision for a fine, the fine must still be reasonable and proportionate.Quoting pphilip
RCW 59.18.190 requires the landlord to give you notice to cure a violation of the lease before the landlord can commence an eviction action. So while the landlord's ability to evict you would have been constrained by that provision, it does not appear to be relevant to your situation as it appears we are merely speaking of your being billed under a penalty provision of the lease.Quoting pphilip
We don't have any of your lease language to work with, but there's nothing inherent in the landlord's delay in enforcing a penalty provision that would stop it from later enforcing that provision. It sounds like the landlord is already giving you a partial break based upon the landlord's late move to enforce the insurance requirement.Quoting pphilip
That can't be answered without reviewing the contract language; but if the penalty is supported by the lease as amended, if it is enforceable, and if it is triggered at the first of each month under the language of the lease as amended, then they can charge you in accord with the lease.Quoting pphilip
I don't see how you have come up with that theory.
The statute for a change in rent or rules would normally require thirty days notice, RCW 59.18.140. However, notice was given in September, 2018, to be effective in November, 2018, and, as October is 31 days long, more than thirty days notice was given.Quoting adjusterjack

