Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.326 (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) Persons engaged in any activity defined in RCW 4.16.300 may be excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss, or liability for those defined activities under the principles of comparative fault for the following affirmative defenses:
(a) To the extent it is caused by an unforeseen act of nature that caused, prevented, or precluded the activities defined in RCW 4.16.300 from meeting the applicable building codes, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the commencement of construction. For purposes of this section an "unforeseen act of nature" means any weather condition, earthquake, or man-made event such as war, terrorism, or vandalism;
(b) To the extent it is caused by a homeowner's unreasonable failure to minimize or prevent those damages in a timely manner, including the failure of the homeowner to allow reasonable and timely access for inspections and repairs under this section. This includes the failure to give timely notice to the builder after discovery of a violation, but does not include damages due to the untimely or inadequate response of a builder to the homeowner's claim;
(c) To the extent it is caused by the homeowner or his or her agent, employee, subcontractor, independent contractor, or consultant by virtue of their failure to follow the builder's or manufacturer's maintenance recommendations, or commonly accepted homeowner maintenance obligations. In order to rely upon this defense as it relates to a builder's recommended maintenance schedule, the builder shall show that the homeowner had written notice of the schedule, the schedule was reasonable at the time it was issued, and the homeowner failed to substantially comply with the written schedule;
(d) To the extent it is caused by the homeowner or his or her agent's or an independent third party's alterations, ordinary wear and tear, misuse, abuse, or neglect, or by the structure's use for something other than its intended purpose;
(e) As to a particular violation for which the builder has obtained a valid release;
(f) To the extent that the builder's repair corrected the alleged violation or defect;
(g) To the extent that a cause of action does not accrue within the statute of repose pursuant to RCW 4.16.310 or that an actionable cause as set forth in RCW 4.16.300 is not filed within the applicable statute of limitations. In contract actions the applicable contract statute of limitations expires, regardless of discovery, six years after substantial completion of construction, or during the period within six years after the termination of the services enumerated in RCW 4.16.300, whichever is later;
(h) As to any causes of action to which this section does not apply, all applicable affirmative defenses are preserved.
(2) This section does not apply to any civil action in tort alleging personal injury or wrongful death to a person or persons resulting from a construction defect.
[ 2003 c 80 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2021 · leading case: 1000 Virginia Ltd. P'ship v. Vertecs Corp., 146 P.3d 423 (Wash. 2006).
1000 Virginia Ltd. P'ship v. Vertecs Corp., 146 P.3d 423 (Wash. 2006). “The Court of Appeals also held that RCW 4.16.326, which provides an affirmative defense, does not apply retroactively.”
1000 Virginia Ltd. P'ship v. Vertecs Corp., 158 Wash. 2d 566 (Wash. 2006). “The Court of Appeals also held that RCW 4.16.326, which provides an affirmative defense, does not apply retroactively.”
Harmony at Madrona Park Owners Ass'n v. Madison Harmony Dev., Inc., 143 Wash. App. 345 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 4.16.326 explicitly lists affirmative defenses only.”
Cambridge Townhomes v. Pac. Star Roofing, 209 P.3d 863 (Wash. 2009). “¶ 23 But in July 2003, RCW 4.16.326(1)(g) went into effect, requiring that construction defect claims be filed within six years of substantial completion of construction or termination of services, whichever is later, regardless of when the claim was discovered.”
Cambridge Townhomes, LLC v. Pac. Star Roofing, Inc., 166 Wash. 2d 475 (Wash. 2009). “¶23 But in July 2003, RCW 4.16.326(1)(g) went into effect, requiring that construction defect claims be filed within six years of substantial completion of construction or termination of services, whichever is later, regardless of when the claim was discovered.”
Dania, Inc. v. Skanska USA Bldg. Inc., 340 P.3d 984 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 4.16.326 provides as follows: (1) Persons engaged in any activity defined in RCW 4.”
Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Pub. Facilities Dist. v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Constr. Co., 296 P.3d 821 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 4.16.326(l)(g) ¶27 Hunt Kiewit argues that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment of dismissal should also be upheld under RCW 4.”
Harmony at Madrona Park Owners Ass'n v. Madison Harmony Dev., Inc., 177 P.3d 755 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 4.16.326 explicitly lists affirmative defenses only.”
BALLARD SQUARE Condo. v. Dynasty Constr. Co., 146 P.3d 914 (Wash. 2006). “14 RCW, the corporate dissolution statutes; (2) RCW 4.16.326(1)(g), providing an affirmative defense to suits on written construction contracts if not brought within six years of substantial completion; and (3) RCW 64.”
Ballard Square Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Dynasty Constr. Co., 158 Wash. 2d 603 (Wash. 2006). “14 RCW, the corporate dissolution statutes; (2) RCW 4.16.326(l)(g), providing an affirmative defense to suits on written construction contracts if not brought within six years of substantial completion; and (3) RCW 64.”
1000 Virginia Ltd. P'ship v. Vertecs Corp., 127 Wash. App. 899 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “32 ¶32 Nothing in RCW 4.16.326 or its legislative history suggests that the legislature, merely because it disapproved of the discovery rule in construction defect cases, intended for the statute to become effective and be applied other than in accordance with these general…”
1000 VIRGINIA LP v. Vertecs Corp., 112 P.3d 1276 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “[32] ¶ 32 Nothing in RCW 4.16.326 or its legislative history suggests that the legislature, merely because it disapproved of the discovery rule in construction defect cases, intended for the statute to become effective and be applied other than in accordance with these general…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.326(1)(g) — 10 cases
1000 Virginia Ltd. P'ship v. Vertecs Corp., 146 P.3d 423 (Wash. 2006). “The Court of Appeals also held that RCW 4.16.326, which provides an affirmative defense, does not apply retroactively.”
Cambridge Townhomes v. Pac. Star Roofing, 209 P.3d 863 (Wash. 2009). “¶ 23 But in July 2003, RCW 4.16.326(1)(g) went into effect, requiring that construction defect claims be filed within six years of substantial completion of construction or termination of services, whichever is later, regardless of when the claim was discovered.”
Cambridge Townhomes, LLC v. Pac. Star Roofing, Inc., 166 Wash. 2d 475 (Wash. 2009). “¶23 But in July 2003, RCW 4.16.326(1)(g) went into effect, requiring that construction defect claims be filed within six years of substantial completion of construction or termination of services, whichever is later, regardless of when the claim was discovered.”
Harmony at Madrona Park Owners Ass'n v. Madison Harmony Dev., Inc., 177 P.3d 755 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 4.16.326 explicitly lists affirmative defenses only.”
BALLARD SQUARE Condo. v. Dynasty Constr. Co., 146 P.3d 914 (Wash. 2006). “14 RCW, the corporate dissolution statutes; (2) RCW 4.16.326(1)(g), providing an affirmative defense to suits on written construction contracts if not brought within six years of substantial completion; and (3) RCW 64.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.326(a) — 1 case
Cacchiotti Props., LLC v. Bradley Phillips, et ux (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.326(g)(1) — 1 case
Gregory Tadych Et Ano., V. Noble Ridge Constr., Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.326(l)(g) — 5 cases
1000 Virginia Ltd. P'ship v. Vertecs Corp., 158 Wash. 2d 566 (Wash. 2006). “The Court of Appeals also held that RCW 4.16.326, which provides an affirmative defense, does not apply retroactively.”
Harmony at Madrona Park Owners Ass'n v. Madison Harmony Dev., Inc., 143 Wash. App. 345 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 4.16.326 explicitly lists affirmative defenses only.”
Dania, Inc. v. Skanska USA Bldg. Inc., 340 P.3d 984 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 4.16.326 provides as follows: (1) Persons engaged in any activity defined in RCW 4.”
Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Pub. Facilities Dist. v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Constr. Co., 296 P.3d 821 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 4.16.326(l)(g) ¶27 Hunt Kiewit argues that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment of dismissal should also be upheld under RCW 4.”
Ballard Square Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Dynasty Constr. Co., 158 Wash. 2d 603 (Wash. 2006). “14 RCW, the corporate dissolution statutes; (2) RCW 4.16.326(l)(g), providing an affirmative defense to suits on written construction contracts if not brought within six years of substantial completion; and (3) RCW 64.”
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.