Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.16
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.160 (2026)

Application of limitations to actions by state, counties, municipalities

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The limitations prescribed in this chapter shall apply to actions brought in the name or for the benefit of any county or other municipality or quasimunicipality of the state, in the same manner as to actions brought by private parties: PROVIDED, That, except as provided in RCW 4.16.310, there shall be no limitation to actions brought in the name or for the benefit of the state, and no claim of right predicated upon the lapse of time shall ever be asserted against the state, including actions asserting a claim for civil penalties under RCW 19.86.140: AND FURTHER PROVIDED, That no previously existing statute of limitations shall be interposed as a defense to any action brought in the name or for the benefit of the state, although such statute may have run and become fully operative as a defense prior to February 27, 1903, nor shall any cause of action against the state be predicated upon such a statute.
[ 2021 c 228 s 3; 1986 c 305 s 701; 1955 c 43 s 2. Prior: 1903 c 24 s 1; Code 1881 s 35; 1873 p 10 ss 34, 35; 1869 p 10 ss 34, 35; 1854 p 364 s 9; RRS s 167, part.]

Notes:

Findings—Short title—2021 c 228: See notes following RCW 19.86.140.
Preamble—1986 c 305: "Tort law in this state has generally been developed by the courts on a case-by-case basis. While this process has resulted in some significant changes in the law, including amelioration of the harshness of many common law doctrines, the legislature has periodically intervened in order to bring about needed reforms. The purpose of this chapter is to enact further reforms in order to create a more equitable distribution of the cost and risk of injury and increase the availability and affordability of insurance.
The legislature finds that counties, cities, and other governmental entities are faced with increased exposure to lawsuits and awards and dramatic increases in the cost of insurance coverage. These escalating costs ultimately affect the public through higher taxes, loss of essential services, and loss of the protection provided by adequate insurance. In order to improve the availability and affordability of quality governmental services, comprehensive reform is necessary.
The legislature also finds comparable cost increases in professional liability insurance. Escalating malpractice insurance premiums discourage physicians and other health care providers from initiating or continuing their practice or offering needed services to the public and contribute to the rising costs of consumer health care. Other professionals, such as architects and engineers, face similar difficult choices, financial instability, and unlimited risk in providing services to the public.
The legislature also finds that general liability insurance is becoming unavailable or unaffordable to many businesses, individuals, and nonprofit organizations in amounts sufficient to cover potential losses. High premiums have discouraged socially and economically desirable activities and encourage many to go without adequate insurance coverage.
Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to reduce costs associated with the tort system, while assuring that adequate and appropriate compensation for persons injured through the fault of others is available." [ 1986 c 305 s 100.]
Report to legislature—1986 c 305: "The insurance commissioner shall submit a report to the legislature by January 1, 1991, on the effects of this act on insurance rates and the availability of insurance coverage and the impact on the civil justice system." [ 1986 c 305 s 909.]
Application—1986 c 305: "Except as provided in sections 202 and 601 of this act and except for section 904 of this act, this act applies to all actions filed on or after August 1, 1986." [ 1986 c 305 s 910.]
Severability—1986 c 305: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1986 c 305 s 911.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · 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 39× “The State also argued that it was exempt from the statute of limitations under RCW 4.16.160, which provides that “there shall be no limitation to actions brought in the name or for the benefit of the state.”
Wash. State Major League Baseball Stadium Pfd v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Const. Co., 202 P.3d 924 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 24× “The appellants contend their action is "for the benefit of the state" and thus exempt from the six year contract statute of limitations under RCW 4.16.160. Br. of Appellants at 19. HK filed a conditional cross-appeal against subcontractors Long Painting, Inc.”
Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Pub. Facilities Dist. v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Constr. Co., 165 Wash. 2d 679 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 24× “The appellants contend their action is “for the benefit of the state” and thus exempt from the six year contract statute of limitations under RCW 4.16.160. Br. of Appellants at 19. HK filed a conditional cross-appeal against subcontractors Long Painting, Inc.”
U. S. Oil & Refining Co. v. Dep't of Ecology, 633 P.2d 1329 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 22× “They all ruled, on the basis of RCW 4.16.160, that the 2-year statute of limitation did not apply.”
Gorman v. City of Woodinville, 283 P.3d 1082 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 14× “160 bars a quiet title action where the claimant alleges he adversely possessed property belonging to a private individual before a municipality acquired record title to the land.”
State v. LG Elec., Inc., 185 Wash. App. 123 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 16× “120? Second, is his action an “inherently sovereign” one that, by virtue of being brought for the “benefit of the state,” is exempted from any other statutory limitation period by RCW 4.16.160? Dwyer, J. *128 ¶2 We hold that when the legislature authorized the Attorney General…”
Bellevue Sch. Dist. No. 405 v. Brazier Constr. Co., 103 Wash. 2d 111 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 26× “Application of RCW 4.16.160 to permit an action by a school district which would otherwise be barred by RCW 4.”
City of Moses Lake v. United States, 430 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (E.D. Wash. 2006). · cites it 13× “RCW 4.16.160 A three year statute of limitations governs trespass claims.”
Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 778 P.2d 1047 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 11× “The Supply System countered that it was exempt from the defense of the statutes of limitation because it was bringing the action "for the benefit of the state” within the meaning of RCW 4.16.160. The District Court petitioned the following question for certification pursuant to…”
Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Pub. Facilities Dist. v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Constr. Co., 296 P.3d 821 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 5× “The present case raises questions about whether the construction statute of repose bars suit against the general contractor and, if *507 not, whether the general contractor may pursue third party claims against two of its subcontractors.”
Bellevue Sch. Dist. No. 405 v. Brazier Constr. Co., 675 P.2d 232 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 46× “There is no rational distinction between an action of this character initiated by a school district and one initiated by a private party under similar circumstances; and there is thus no reason to apply a different time within which the School District must bring its action.”
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 481 P.2d 556 (Wash. 1971). · cites it 14× “As authority for its proposition, appellant refers us to RCW 4.16.160, which provides: That there shall be no limitation to actions brought in the name or for the benefit of the state, and no claim of right predicated upon the lapse of time shall ever be asserted against the…”
Show all 46 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.