Wash. Rev. Code » Title 18 · Chapter 18.27
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.27.080 (2026)

Registration prerequisite to suit

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of a contractor may bring or maintain any action in any court of this state for the collection of compensation for the performance of any work or for breach of any contract for which registration is required under this chapter without alleging and proving that he or she was a duly registered contractor and held a current and valid certificate of registration at the time he or she contracted for the performance of such work or entered into such contract. For the purposes of this section, the court shall not find a contractor in substantial compliance with the registration requirements of this chapter unless: (1) The department has on file the information required by RCW 18.27.030; (2) the contractor has at all times had in force a current bond or other security as required by RCW 18.27.040; and (3) the contractor has at all times had in force current insurance as required by RCW 18.27.050. In determining under this section whether a contractor is in substantial compliance with the registration requirements of this chapter, the court shall take into consideration the length of time during which the contractor did not hold a valid certificate of registration.
[ 2011 c 336 s 474; 2007 c 436 s 5; 1988 c 285 s 2; 1972 ex.s. c 118 s 3; 1963 c 77 s 8.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 72 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1970–2024 · leading case: Davidson v. Hensen, 954 P.2d 1327 (Wash. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Davidson v. Hensen, 954 P.2d 1327 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 12× “At best, this "new evidence" merely conflicts with other evidence in this case and raises anew a fact issue regarding Hensen's registration.”
Davidson v. Hensen, 135 Wash. 2d 112 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 12× “At best, this “new evidence” merely conflicts with other evidence in this case and raises anew a fact issue regarding Hensen’s registration.”
Murphy v. Campbell Inv. Co., 486 P.2d 1080 (Wash. 1971). · cites it 24× “Respondent's central defense to appellants' claims is based upon the wording of RCW 18.27.080, which provides: *419 No person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of a contractor may bring or maintain any action in any court of this state for the collection of…”
Frank v. Fischer, 739 P.2d 1145 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 17× “This case involves the applicability of RCW 18.27.080 which bars contractors who are not registered in this state from suing on their service contracts.”
Vedder v. Spellman, 480 P.2d 207 (Wash. 1971). · cites it 18× “They concede that they cannot maintain an action upon the contract, being precluded by RCW 18.27.080, which provides: No person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of a contractor may bring or maintain any action in any court of this state for the collection of…”
Bort v. Parker, 110 Wash. App. 561 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “After concluding the Contractors Registration Act (CRA), RCW 18.27.080, precluded LBC’s complaint against Mr.”
Bort v. Parker, 42 P.3d 980 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “After concluding the Contractors Registration Act (CRA), RCW 18.27.080, precluded LBC's complaint against Mr.”
Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Productization, Inc., 872 P.2d 78 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 15× “RCW 18.27.080. We address three questions in this case.”
Blue Diamond Grp., Inc. v. KB Seattle 1, Inc., 266 P.3d 881 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “26 Fischer raised the statutory bar of RCW 18.27.080 and the trial court granted summary judgment in his favor.”
Jeanneret v. Rees, 511 P.2d 60 (Wash. 1973). · cites it 12× “The defendant's defense is based upon RCW 18.27.080 which provides: No person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of a contractor may bring or maintain any action in any court of this state for the collection of compensation for the performance of any work or for…”
Williamson, Inc. v. Calibre Homes, Inc., 23 P.3d 1118 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “[12] For a corporation to obtain a broker's license, a corporate officer must be designated as the broker and qualify for a broker's license. WAC 308-124A-200. We note that the "Application for Real Estate Salesperson/Associate Broker/Branch Manager," available at the Department…”
Williamson, Inc. v. Calibre Homes, Inc., 106 Wash. App. 558 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “We note that the “Application for Real Estate Salesperson/Associate Broker/ Branch Manager,” available at the Department of Licensing web site, does not appear to contemplate a corporate applicant, while the broker application has a specific application for corporations.”
Show all 72 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.