Wash. Rev. Code » Title 39 · Chapter 39.04
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 39.04.240 (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) The provisions of RCW 4.84.250 through 4.84.280 shall apply to an action arising out of a public works contract in which the state or a municipality, or other public body that contracts for public works, is a party, except that: (a) The maximum dollar limitation in RCW 4.84.250 shall not apply; and (b) in applying RCW 4.84.280, the time period for serving offers of settlement on the adverse party shall be the period not less than thirty days and not more than one hundred twenty days after completion of the service and filing of the summons and complaint.
(2) The rights provided for under this section may not be waived by the parties to a public works contract that is entered into on or after June 11, 1992, and a provision in such a contract that provides for waiver of these rights is void as against public policy. However, this subsection shall not be construed as prohibiting the parties from mutually agreeing to a clause in a public works contract that requires submission of a dispute arising under the contract to arbitration.
[ 1999 c 107 s 1; 1992 c 171 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: Frank Coluccio Constr. Co. v. King Cnty., 150 P.3d 1147 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Frank Coluccio Constr. Co. v. King Cnty., 150 P.3d 1147 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “58 in attorney fees and costs pursuant to RCW 39.04.240. 22 King County argues that the trial court exceeded its statutory authority by awarding FCCC attorneys fees and costs that were billed by attorneys *780 to DBM, an entity that was not a party to the litigation.”
Absher Constr. Co. v. Kent Sch. Dist. No. 415, 890 P.2d 1071 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 7× “250-.280, to public works contracts "except that: (a) The maximum amount of the pleading shall be two hundred fifty thousand dollars”.”
Realm, Inc. v. City of Olympia, 277 P.3d 679 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “” And under RCW 4.84.270, a defendant is deemed a prevailing party “if the plaintiff .”
REALM, INC. v. City of Olympia, 277 P.3d 679 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “270, a defendant is deemed a prevailing party "if the plaintiff .”
Absher Constr. Co. v. Kent Sch. Dist. No. 415, 905 P.2d 1229 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “The basis for the award is RCW 39.04.240. The fee request includes time for the following individuals: (1) A partner in practice for 20 years billed 104.”
Absher Const. Co. v. Kent Sch. Dist., 917 P.2d 1086 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “The basis for the award is RCW 39.04.240. The fee request includes time for the following individuals: (1) A partner in practice for 20 years billed 104.”
Conway Constr. Co. v. City of Puyallup, 490 P.3d 221 (Wash. 2021). · cites it 8× “Attorney Fees Finally, we must decide whether Conway is entitled to contractual attorney fees given the very different fee provision in RCW 39.04.240. RCW 39.04.240 provides a prevailing party attorney fees in public works contract cases under specific circumstances.”
King Cnty. v. Vinci Constr. Grands Projets/Parsons RCI/Frontier-Kemper, JV, 191 Wash. App. 142 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “280, as modified by RCW 39.04.240 of the “Public Works Act,” chapter 39.”
Basin Paving Co. v. Contractors Bonding & Ins. Co., 98 P.3d 109 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 9× “(MMJ) by the Town of Lind (Lind) under RCW 39.04.240(1)(b). Lind's offer to settle exceeded the summary judgment award to MMJ, but the trial court held Lind's offer exceeded the time limit set in the statute when considered from MMJ's original cross claim as compared to MMJ's…”
Basin Paving Co. v. Contractors Bonding & Ins., 123 Wash. App. 410 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “MMJ alleged breach of express and implied warranties, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of contract.”
Am. Saf. Cas. Ins. v. City of Olympia, 133 Wash. App. 649 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “Attorney Fees ¶52 American Safety argues that the trial court erred in granting the City attorney fees because RCW 39.04.240 and RCW 4.84.250 allow attorney fees for the prevailing party and if we overturn the summary judgment ruling, then the City is no longer the prevailing…”
Am. Saf. Cas. Ins. v. City of Olympia, 162 Wash. 2d 762 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 39.04.240; RAP 18.1. Ill Conclusion ¶20 Implied waiver of contractual rights requires unequivocal acts, and here the City’s acts were, at most, equivocal.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 39.04.240(1) — 12 cases
Absher Constr. Co. v. Kent Sch. Dist. No. 415, 890 P.2d 1071 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “250-.280, to public works contracts "except that: (a) The maximum amount of the pleading shall be two hundred fifty thousand dollars”.”
Frank Coluccio Constr. Co. v. King Cnty., 150 P.3d 1147 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “58 in attorney fees and costs pursuant to RCW 39.04.240. 22 King County argues that the trial court exceeded its statutory authority by awarding FCCC attorneys fees and costs that were billed by attorneys *780 to DBM, an entity that was not a party to the litigation.”
Realm, Inc. v. City of Olympia, 277 P.3d 679 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “” And under RCW 4.84.270, a defendant is deemed a prevailing party “if the plaintiff .”
REALM, INC. v. City of Olympia, 277 P.3d 679 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “270, a defendant is deemed a prevailing party "if the plaintiff .”
King Cnty. v. Vinci Constr. Grands Projets/Parsons RCI/Frontier-Kemper, JV, 191 Wash. App. 142 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “280, as modified by RCW 39.04.240 of the “Public Works Act,” chapter 39.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 39.04.240(1)(b) — 1 case
Basin Paving Co. v. Contractors Bonding & Ins. Co., 98 P.3d 109 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “(MMJ) by the Town of Lind (Lind) under RCW 39.04.240(1)(b). Lind's offer to settle exceeded the summary judgment award to MMJ, but the trial court held Lind's offer exceeded the time limit set in the statute when considered from MMJ's original cross claim as compared to MMJ's…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 39.04.240(2) — 4 cases
King Cnty. v. Vinci Constr. Grands Projets/Parsons RCI/Frontier-Kemper, JV (Wash. 2017).
City Of Puyallup v. Conway Constr. Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
State Constr. Inc v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
City of Olympia v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. (W.D. Wash. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 39.04.240(l)(b) — 1 case
Basin Paving Co. v. Contractors Bonding & Ins., 123 Wash. App. 410 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “MMJ alleged breach of express and implied warranties, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of contract.”
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.