Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.118
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.118.100 (2026)

Trial de novo—Posting security—Recovery

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The consumer or the manufacturer may request a trial de novo of the arbitration decision, including a rejection, in superior court.
(2) If the manufacturer appeals, the court may require the manufacturer to post security for the consumer's financial loss due to the passage of time for review.
(3) If the consumer prevails, recovery shall include the monetary value of the award, attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the superior court action, and, if the board awarded the consumer replacement or repurchase of the vehicle and the manufacturer did not comply, continuing damages in the amount of twenty-five dollars per day for all days beyond the forty calendar day period following the manufacturer's receipt of the consumer's acceptance of the board's decision in which the manufacturer did not provide the consumer with the free use of a comparable loaner replacement motor vehicle. If it is determined by the court that the party that appealed acted without good cause in bringing the appeal or brought the appeal solely for the purpose of harassment, the court may triple, but at least shall double, the amount of the total award.
[ 1989 c 347 s 6; 1987 c 344 s 8.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Ford Motor Co. v. Barrett, 800 P.2d 367 (Wash. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ford Motor Co. v. Barrett, 800 P.2d 367 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 43× “090(8) and RCW 19.118.100. In addition to denying Mr.”
Gonzales v. Inslee, 535 P.3d 864 (Wash. 2023). “at 562-63 (citing RCW 19.118.100(3)). The court did not consider whether the statute violated the right to access to the courts under article I, section 10 of our state constitution.”
In Re the Parentage of Smith-Bartlett, 976 P.2d 173 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “230 (weeds, rodents and pests); RCW 19.118.100(1) (motor vehicle warranties—consumer may request trial de novo of arbitration decision); RCW 28A.”
Abbs v. Georgie Boy Mfg., Inc., 803 P.2d 14 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “Abbs also request attorney fees on appeal, pursuant to RCW 19.118.100. Because they are the prevailing party, reasonable attorney fees incurred on appeal are awarded.”
Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Flowers, 803 P.2d 314 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 2× “The court ordered Chrysler to repurchase the automobile, as had previously been ordered by the arbitration board, and also awarded attorneys' fees and costs to the purchaser pursuant to RCW 19.118.100. Chrysler appealed the summary judgment order to the Court of Appeals.”
Mendis v. BMW of North Am. LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). “2 (8) Where a consumer rejects an arbitration decision, the consumer may appeal to 3 superior court pursuant to RCW 19.118.100. The consumer shall have one hundred twenty calendar days from the date of rejection to file a petition of appeal in 4 superior court.”
Michael W. Feikes, Et Ano, V. Volkswagen Grp. Of Am., Et Ano (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “” RCW 19.118.100(1). The Feikeses’ rejected request for arbitration was eligible for de novo review by a superior court.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.118.100(1) — 3 cases
In Re the Parentage of Smith-Bartlett, 976 P.2d 173 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “230 (weeds, rodents and pests); RCW 19.118.100(1) (motor vehicle warranties—consumer may request trial de novo of arbitration decision); RCW 28A.”
Abbs v. Georgie Boy Mfg., Inc., 803 P.2d 14 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “Abbs also request attorney fees on appeal, pursuant to RCW 19.118.100. Because they are the prevailing party, reasonable attorney fees incurred on appeal are awarded.”
Michael W. Feikes, Et Ano, V. Volkswagen Grp. Of Am., Et Ano (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “” RCW 19.118.100(1). The Feikeses’ rejected request for arbitration was eligible for de novo review by a superior court.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.118.100(3) — 4 cases
Ford Motor Co. v. Barrett, 800 P.2d 367 (Wash. 1990). “090(8) and RCW 19.118.100. In addition to denying Mr.”
Gonzales v. Inslee, 535 P.3d 864 (Wash. 2023). “at 562-63 (citing RCW 19.118.100(3)). The court did not consider whether the statute violated the right to access to the courts under article I, section 10 of our state constitution.”
Abbs v. Georgie Boy Mfg., Inc., 803 P.2d 14 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “Abbs also request attorney fees on appeal, pursuant to RCW 19.118.100. Because they are the prevailing party, reasonable attorney fees incurred on appeal are awarded.”
Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Flowers, 803 P.2d 314 (Wash. 1991). “The court ordered Chrysler to repurchase the automobile, as had previously been ordered by the arbitration board, and also awarded attorneys' fees and costs to the purchaser pursuant to RCW 19.118.100. Chrysler appealed the summary judgment order to the Court of Appeals.”
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.