Wash. Rev. Code » Title 39 · Chapter 39.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 39.08.065 (2026)

Notice to contractor condition to suit on bond when supplies are furnished to subcontractor

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every person, firm, or corporation furnishing materials, supplies, or provisions to be used in the construction, performance, carrying on, prosecution, or doing of any work for the state, or any county, city, town, district, municipality, or other public body, shall, not later than ten days after the date of the first delivery of such materials, supplies, or provisions to any subcontractor or agent of any person, firm, or corporation having a subcontract for the construction, performance, carrying on, prosecution, or doing of such work, deliver or mail to the contractor a notice in writing stating in substance and effect that such person, firm, or corporation has commenced to deliver materials, supplies, or provisions for use thereon, with the name of the subcontractor or agent ordering or to whom the same is furnished and that such contractor and his or her bond will be held for the payment of the same, and no suit or action shall be maintained in any court against the contractor or his or her bond to recover for such material, supplies, or provisions or any part thereof unless the provisions of this section have been complied with.
[ 2011 c 336 s 804; 1915 c 167 s 1; RRS s 1159-1. Formerly RCW 39.08.020.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1965–2013 · leading case: LRS Elec. Controls, Inc. v. Hamre Const., Inc., 107 P.3d 721 (Wash. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
LRS Elec. Controls, Inc. v. Hamre Const., Inc., 107 P.3d 721 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 25× “¶ 1 The central question presented is whether preclaim notice requirements, generally necessary to recover on a materials claim against either a contractor's bond (RCW 39.08.065) or a retained percentage (RCW 60.”
LRS Elec. Controls, Inc. v. Hamre Constr. Inc., 153 Wash. 2d 731 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 25× “*734 ¶1 The central question presented is whether preclaim notice requirements, generally necessary to recover on a materials claim against either a contractor’s bond (RCW 39.08.065) or a retained percentage (RCW 60.”
LRS Elec. Controls, Inc. v. Hamre Constr., Inc., 82 P.3d 248 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “It argued that RCW 39.08.065 1 and RCW 60.28.015 2 required Tyko to give notice of its intent to claim a material lien.”
Austin v. C. v. Wilder & Co., 397 P.2d 1019 (Wash. 1965). · cites it 4× “This appeal brings into sharp focus the application of RCW 39.08.065 to the facts. RCW 39.08.065, omitting provisions not material here, provides: “Every person [Plaintiff Austin] .”
Nat'l Concrete Cutting, Inc. v. Nw. GM Contractors, Inc., 107 Wash. App. 657 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Lumpkin asserted that National Concrete should be considered a supplier of materials required to file a preclaim notice under RCW 39.08.065. That provision states: Notice to contractor condition to suit on bond when supplies are furnished to subcontractor.”
Keller Supply Co. v. Lydig Constr. Co., 789 P.2d 788 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “) RCW 39.08.065. Recovery from retained percentage—Written notice to contractor of materials furnished.”
Better Fin. Solutions, Inc. v. Transtech Elec., Inc., 112 Wash. App. 697 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Northwest GM Contractors, 24 the issue presented was whether National Concrete was a supplier of materials to a public works project and therefore required to file a preclaim notice under RCW 39.08.065 or whether it was a supplier of labor and therefore not required to file such…”
Nat. Concrete Cutting v. Nw Gm Contractors, 27 P.3d 1239 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Lumpkin asserted that National Concrete should be considered a supplier of materials required to file a pre-claim notice under RCW 39.08.065. That provision states: Notice to contractor condition to suit on bond when supplies are furnished to subcontractor.”
Campbell Crane & Rigging Servs., Inc. v. Dynamic Int'l AK, Inc., 186 P.3d 1193 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “No “Materials” for Incorporation into Project ¶14 BP argues that Campbell Crane’s role as a second-tier subcontractor supplying both materials and labor required Campbell Crane to give prelien notice.”
Better Fin. Solutions, Inc. v. Transtech Elec., Inc., 51 P.3d 108 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Northwest GM Contractors, [24] the issue presented was whether National Concrete was a supplier of materials to a public works project and therefore required to file a pre-claim notice under RCW 39.08.065 or whether it was a supplier of labor and therefore not required to file…”
Apex Glass & Sash, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 490 P.2d 885 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “if the contract requires delivery at destination, title passes on tender there.”
LRS Elec. Controls, Inc. v. HAMRE CONST., INC., 82 P.3d 248 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 9× “Tyko then claimed against both the payment bond and the county's retainage for the balance due, $9,500, and ultimately sued on the claim.”
Show all 13 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.