Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.090
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person who is injured in his or her business or property by a violation of RCW 19.86.020, 19.86.030, 19.86.040, 19.86.050, or 19.86.060, or any person so injured because he or she refuses to accede to a proposal for an arrangement which, if consummated, would be in violation of RCW 19.86.030, 19.86.040, 19.86.050, or 19.86.060, may bring a civil action in superior court to enjoin further violations, to recover the actual damages sustained by him or her, or both, together with the costs of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. In addition, the court may, in its discretion, increase the award of damages up to an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages sustained: PROVIDED, That such increased damage award for violation of RCW 19.86.020 may not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars: PROVIDED FURTHER, That such person may bring a civil action in the district court to recover his or her actual damages, except for damages which exceed the amount specified in RCW 3.66.020, and the costs of the suit, including reasonable attorney's fees. The district court may, in its discretion, increase the award of damages to an amount not more than three times the actual damages sustained, but such increased damage award shall not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars. For the purpose of this section, "person" includes the counties, municipalities, and all political subdivisions of this state.
Whenever the state of Washington is injured, directly or indirectly, by reason of a violation of RCW 19.86.030, 19.86.040, 19.86.050, or 19.86.060, it may sue therefor in superior court to recover the actual damages sustained by it, whether direct or indirect, and to recover the costs of the suit including a reasonable attorney's fee.
[ 2009 c 371 s 1; 2007 c 66 s 2; 1987 c 202 s 187; 1983 c 288 s 3; 1970 ex.s. c 26 s 2; 1961 c 216 s 9.]
Notes:
Application—2009 c 371: "This act applies to all causes of action that accrue on or after July 26, 2009." [ 2009 c 371 s 3.]
Effective date—2007 c 66: See note following RCW 19.86.080.
Intent—1987 c 202: See note following RCW 2.04.190.
Short title—Purposes—1983 c 288: "This act may be cited as the antitrust/consumer protection improvements act. Its purposes are to strengthen public and private enforcement of the unfair business practices-consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW, and to repeal the unfair practices act, chapter 19.90 RCW, in order to eliminate a statute which is unnecessary in light of the provisions and remedies of chapter 19.86 RCW. In repealing chapter 19.90 RCW, it is the intent of the legislature that chapter 19.86 RCW should continue to provide appropriate remedies for predatory pricing and other pricing practices which constitute violations of federal antitrust law." [ 1983 c 288 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 553
cases (150 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: Bowers v. Transamerica Title Insurance
Bowers v. Transamerica Title Insurance (1983)
“Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees of $42,805 under RCW 19.86.090. We hold that: 1. An escrow agent is liable for damages resulting from the agent's failure to advise a party to a real estate closing to obtain independent legal advice.”
Strenge v. Clarke (1977)
“Petitioner counterclaimed for treble damages under RCW 19.86.090 of the Consumer Protection Act.”
Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington (2009)
“RCW 19.86.090. To prevail in a private CPA claim, the plaintiff must prove (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) occurring in trade or commerce, (3) affecting the public interest, (4) injury to a person's business or property, and (5) causation.”
Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp. (1993)
“*312 RCW 19.86.090 creates a private right of action by providing: Any person who is injured in his or her business or property by a violation of RCW 19.”
State v. LG Electronics, Inc. (2016)
“86 RCW, provides that actions for damages under RCW 19.86.090 must be brought within four years.”
State v. LG Electronics, Inc. (2014)
“Similarly, federal law authorizes both certain persons 23 and the United States to bring a cause of action seeking injunctive relief and actual damages 24 for violations of certain federal antitrust laws.”
William Merriman, et ux v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co. (2017)
“86 RCW, whose violation can support a civil action as provided by RCW 19.86.090. 2 As with all appeals from a summary judgment, we review the evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Anhold v. Daniels (1980)
“We retained Anhold's direct appeal from the dismissal of her action under RCW 19.86. In 1970, the legislature amended the Consumer Protection Act authorizing private parties to sue for unfair or deceptive business practices.”
Nuttall v. Dowell (1982)
“In awarding reasonable attorney's fees to the plaintiff pursuant to RCW 19.86.090, the trial judge limited the award to only that portion of plaintiff's action which was cognizable under consumer protection, i.”
Mason v. Mortgage America, Inc. (1990)
“11 RCW 19.86.090 provides in part: Any person who is injured in his or her business or property by a violation of RCW 19.”
Smith v. Behr Process Corp. (2002)
“RCW 19.86.090. Here, the trial court exercised its discretion by awarding treble damages but only to the class representatives: 7.”
Smith v. Behr Process Corp. (2002)
“] RCW 19.86.090. Here, the trial court exercised its discretion by awarding treble damages but only to the class representatives: 7.”
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.