Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.86
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.120 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any action to enforce a claim for damages under RCW 19.86.090 shall be forever barred unless commenced within four years after the cause of action accrues: PROVIDED, That whenever any action is brought by the attorney general for a violation of RCW 19.86.020, 19.86.030, 19.86.040, 19.86.050, or 19.86.060, except actions for the recovery of a civil penalty for violation of an injunction or actions under RCW 19.86.090, the running of the foregoing statute of limitations, with respect to every private right of action for damages under RCW 19.86.090 which is based in whole or part on any matter complained of in said action by the attorney general, shall be suspended during the pendency thereof.
[ 1970 ex.s. c 26 s 5; 1961 c 216 s 12.]

Notes:

Action to enforce claim for civil damages under chapter 19.86 RCW must be commenced within six years. Unfair motor vehicles business practices act: RCW 46.70.220.
Limitation of actions: Chapter 4.16 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 83 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: State v. LG Elec., Inc., 375 P.3d 636 (Wash. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. LG Elec., Inc., 375 P.3d 636 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 26× “CP at 29-59 (citing RCW 19.86.120). The State responded that RCW 19.”
State v. LG Elec., Inc., 185 Wash. App. 123 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 35× “First, when, pursuant to the CPA, the Attorney General of Washington brings an action as parens patriae 2 on behalf of Washington residents, is his action subject to the four-year limitation period contained within RCW 19.86.120? Second, is his action an “inherently sovereign”…”
Shepard v. Holmes, 345 P.3d 786 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “RCW 19.86.120; Pic *739 kett v. Holland Am.”
Kittilson v. Ford, 595 P.2d 944 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 4× “She argues that the Consumer Protection Act action is governed by the specific *406 limitation provisions of that act, namely, RCW 19.86.120, [2] and that the general statute of limitation, RCW 4.”
Johnston v. Beneficial Mgmt. Corp. of Am., 538 P.2d 510 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 4× “See RCW 19.86.120. [6] The trial court correctly held that the claims based upon the retail installment sales act and the usury statute were barred by the statutes of limitations provided in those acts.”
Mckee v. At & T Corp., 191 P.3d 845 (Wash. 2008). “RCW 19.86.120; CP at 719. The four year statute of limitations permits adequate time for consumers to vindicate rights violated by unfair business practices.”
McKee v. AT&T Corp., 164 Wash. 2d 372 (Wash. 2008). “RCW 19.86.120; CP at 719. The four year statute of limitations permits adequate time for consumers to vindicate rights violated by unfair business practices.”
Jonathan Deegan v. Windermere Real Est./Ctr. Isle, Inc., 197 Wash. App. 875 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “54 RCW 19.86.120. 55 1000 Va. Ltd. P’ship v.”
Tracker Marine, L.P. v. Ogle, 108 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. App. 2003). “1(B); Washington: Wash. Rev.Code Ann. § 19.86.120. 30 . See, e.”
Beroth v. Apollo Coll., Inc., 135 Wash. App. 551 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Longie (the students) challenge the trial court’s order upholding the arbitrator’s decision, arguing that the new arbitration agreement superseded and rescinded the original provision, the original arbitration provision was unconscionable, and the one-year limi *557 tation…”
Beroth v. Apollo Coll., Inc., 145 P.3d 386 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Longie (the students) challenge the trial court's order upholding the arbitrator's decision, arguing that the new arbitration agreement superseded and rescinded the original provision, the original arbitration provision was unconscionable, and the one-year limitation period does…”
Alexander v. Sanford, 325 P.3d 341 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “This case was decided on a CR 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, which does not impose a proof burden on either party. To the contrary, any fact alleged by plaintiffs is taken as true.”
Show all 83 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.