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

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.300 (2026)

Actions or claims arising from construction, alteration, repair, design, planning, survey, engineering, etc., of improvements upon real property

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
RCW 4.16.300 through 4.16.320 shall apply to all claims or causes of action of any kind against any person, arising from such person having constructed, altered or repaired any improvement upon real property, or having performed or furnished any design, planning, surveying, architectural or construction or engineering services, or supervision or observation of construction, or administration of construction contracts for any construction, alteration or repair of any improvement upon real property. This section is specifically intended to benefit persons having performed work for which the persons must be registered or licensed under RCW 18.08.310, 18.27.020, 18.43.040, 18.96.020, or 19.28.041, and shall not apply to claims or causes of action against persons not required to be so registered or licensed.
[ 2004 c 257 s 1; 1986 c 305 s 703; 1967 c 75 s 1.]

Notes:

Severability—2004 c 257: "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." [ 2004 c 257 s 2.]
Preamble—Report to legislature—Applicability—Severability—1986 c 305: See notes following RCW 4.16.160.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: Washburn v. Beatt Equip. Co., 840 P.2d 860 (Wash. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Washburn v. Beatt Equip. Co., 840 P.2d 860 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 30× “With that background we turn to the heart of the question of liability.”
1000 Virginia Ltd. P'ship v. Vertecs Corp., 146 P.3d 423 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 16× “This provision sets out an affirmative defense to a breach of construction contract claim, providing that the statute of limitations runs at the expiration of six years from the date of substantial completion or from the termination of services listed in RCW 4.”
1000 Virginia Ltd. P'ship v. Vertecs Corp., 158 Wash. 2d 566 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 15× “This provision sets out an affirmative defense to a breach of construction contract claim, providing that the statute of limitations runs at the expiration of six years from the date of substantial completion or from *573 the termination of services listed in RCW 4.”
In The Matter Of: Linda Cameron, App v. Atl. Richfield Co., Aka, Resp, 442 P.3d 31 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 28× “2 RCW4.16.300, .310. -2- No. 76663-5-I / 3 PTant.”
Pfeifer v. City of Bellingham, 772 P.2d 1018 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 14× “*565 The trial court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, concluding that both the public duty doctrine and RCW 4.16.300, the statute of repose for construction, barred Ms.”
Dania, Inc. v. Skanska USA Bldg. Inc., 340 P.3d 984 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 21× “The statute provides as follows: All claims or causes of action as set forth in RCW 4.16.300 shall accrue, and the applicable statute of limitation shall begin to run only during the period within six years after substantial completion of construction, or during the period…”
Condit v. Lewis Refrigeration Co., 676 P.2d 466 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 8× “Respondent moved for summary judgment, urging that the suit was barred because it had not been brought within the limitations established by RCW 4.16.300 and RCW 4.16-.310. Those statutes provide: RCW 4.”
Del Guzzi Constr. Co. v. Global Nw. Ltd., Inc., 719 P.2d 120 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 6× “Initially, we must determine if Global's claim falls within the parameters of RCW 4.16.300, which provides: *883 RCW 4.”
Parkridge Assocs., Ltd v. Ledcor Indus., Inc., 54 P.3d 225 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 8× “310: [a]ll claims or causes of action as set forth in RCW 4.16.300 shall accrue, and the applicable statute of limitation shall begin to run only during the period within six years after substantial completion of construction, or during the period within six years after the…”
Parkridge Assocs., Ltd. v. Ledcor Indus., Inc., 113 Wash. App. 592 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 8× “310: [a]ll claims or causes of action as set forth in RCW 4.16.300 shall accrue, and the applicable statute of limitation shall begin to run only during the period within six years after substantial completion of construction, or during the period within six years after the…”
Pinneo v. Stevens Pass, Inc., 545 P.2d 1207 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 10× “The appeal questions the applicability of RCW 4.16.300 et seq., and presents the sole issue of whether the ski lift constituted, as a matter of law, an “improvement upon real property” within the meaning of the term as found in RCW 4.”
Meneely v. S.R. Smith, Inc., 5 P.3d 49 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 10× “It reads as follows: All claims or causes of action as set forth in RCW 4.16.300 shall accrue, and the applicable statute of limitation shall begin to run only during the period within six years after substantial completion of construction, or during the period within six years…”
Show all 55 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.