Wash. Rev. Code » Title 18 · Chapter 18.86
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.060 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A broker may act as a limited dual agent only with the written consent of both parties to the transaction, set forth in the services agreement.
(2) Unless additional duties are agreed to in writing signed by a limited dual agent, the duties of a limited dual agent are limited to those set forth in RCW 18.86.030 and the following, which may not be waived except as expressly set forth in (e) and (f) of this subsection:
(a) To take no action that is adverse or detrimental to either party's interest in a transaction;
(b) To timely disclose to both parties any conflicts of interest;
(c) To advise both parties to seek expert advice on matters relating to the transaction that are beyond the limited dual agent's expertise;
(d) To not disclose any confidential information from or about either party, except under subpoena or court order, even after termination of the agency relationship;
(e) Unless otherwise agreed to in writing after the limited dual agent has complied with RCW 18.86.030(1)(f), to make a good faith and continuous effort to find a buyer for the property; except that a limited dual agent is not obligated to seek additional offers to purchase the property while the property is subject to an existing contract for sale; and
(f) Unless otherwise agreed to in writing after the limited dual agent has complied with RCW 18.86.030(1)(f), to make a good faith and continuous effort to find a property for the buyer; except that a limited dual agent is not obligated to seek additional properties to purchase while the buyer is a party to an existing contract to purchase.
(3)(a) The showing of properties not owned by the seller to prospective buyers or the listing of competing properties for sale by a limited dual agent does not in and of itself constitute action that is adverse or detrimental to the seller or create a conflict of interest.
(b) The representation of more than one seller by different brokers licensed to the same firm in competing transactions involving the same buyer does not in and of itself constitute action that is adverse or detrimental to the sellers or create a conflict of interest.
(4)(a) The showing of property in which a buyer is interested to other prospective buyers or the presentation of additional offers to purchase property while the property is subject to a transaction by a limited dual agent does not in and of itself constitute action that is adverse or detrimental to the buyer or create a conflict of interest.
(b) The representation of more than one buyer by different brokers licensed to the same firm in competing transactions involving the same property does not in and of itself constitute action that is adverse or detrimental to the buyers or create a conflict of interest.
(5) In a transaction in which different brokers affiliated with the same firm represent different parties, the firm's designated broker, and any managing broker responsible for the supervision of both brokers, is a limited dual agent. In such case, each appointed broker shall solely represent the party with whom the appointed broker has an agency relationship.
[ 2023 c 318 s 6; 2013 c 58 s 7; 1997 c 217 s 4; 1996 c 179 s 6.]

Notes:

Effective date—2023 c 318: See note following RCW 18.86.010.
Real estate agency pamphlet—1997 c 217 ss 1-6: See note following RCW 18.86.120.
Effective date—1997 c 217 ss 1-6 and 8: See note following RCW 18.86.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1997–2013 · leading case: Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc., 134 Wash. 2d 24 (Wash. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc., 134 Wash. 2d 24 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 4× “” RCW 18.86.060(2)(a). This legislation, however, was not in effect at the time of this transaction and is only prospective in application.”
Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc., 948 P.2d 816 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 4× “" RCW 18.86.060(2)(a). Thus, based on traditional Washington analysis of the duty owed by a real estate broker to a seller or to a purchaser, Scott violated its duty to Sing by virtue of the self-dealing of its agent.”
Jackowski v. Borchelt, 278 P.3d 1100 (Wash. 2012). “RCW 18.86.060(4)(a). ¶22 Since the language of the statute, RCW 18.”
Nishikawa v. Us Eagle High, LLC, 158 P.3d 1265 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Eagle cites RCW 18.86.060(2)(a)-(b), entitled "Dual Agent — Duties," in its brief.”
Nishikawa v. U.S. Eagle High, LLC, 138 Wash. App. 841 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Eagle cites RCW 18.86.060(2)(a)-(b), entitled “Dual Agent—Duties,” in its brief.”
Sergey Savchuk, App. v. Christine Sams, Resp's. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “And, Savchuk did not enter an agreement with Inman making her a dual agent as contemplated by RCW 18.86.060. 17 No. 68608-9-1/18 refundable in the event of failure to close.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.060(2)(a) — 4 cases
Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc., 134 Wash. 2d 24 (Wash. 1997). “” RCW 18.86.060(2)(a). This legislation, however, was not in effect at the time of this transaction and is only prospective in application.”
Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc., 948 P.2d 816 (Wash. 1997). “" RCW 18.86.060(2)(a). Thus, based on traditional Washington analysis of the duty owed by a real estate broker to a seller or to a purchaser, Scott violated its duty to Sing by virtue of the self-dealing of its agent.”
Nishikawa v. Us Eagle High, LLC, 158 P.3d 1265 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Eagle cites RCW 18.86.060(2)(a)-(b), entitled "Dual Agent — Duties," in its brief.”
Nishikawa v. U.S. Eagle High, LLC, 138 Wash. App. 841 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Eagle cites RCW 18.86.060(2)(a)-(b), entitled “Dual Agent—Duties,” in its brief.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.060(2)(d) — 2 cases
Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc., 134 Wash. 2d 24 (Wash. 1997). “” RCW 18.86.060(2)(a). This legislation, however, was not in effect at the time of this transaction and is only prospective in application.”
Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc., 948 P.2d 816 (Wash. 1997). “" RCW 18.86.060(2)(a). Thus, based on traditional Washington analysis of the duty owed by a real estate broker to a seller or to a purchaser, Scott violated its duty to Sing by virtue of the self-dealing of its agent.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.060(4)(a) — 1 case
Jackowski v. Borchelt, 278 P.3d 1100 (Wash. 2012). “RCW 18.86.060(4)(a). ¶22 Since the language of the statute, RCW 18.”
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.