Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.18
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.18.020 (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) Except as provided by RCW 4.18.040, if a claim is substantively based:
(a) Upon the law of one other state, the limitation period of that state applies; or
(b) Upon the law of more than one state, the limitation period of one of those states, chosen by the law of conflict of laws of this state, applies.
(2) The limitation period of this state applies to all other claims.
[ 1983 c 152 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Woodward v. Taylor, 366 P.3d 432 (Wash. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Woodward v. Taylor, 366 P.3d 432 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 5× “” Therefore, the trial court held that Idaho’s substantive law applied to the case and, hence, Idaho’s two-year statute of limitations applied pursuant to RCW 4.18.020. 1 ¶7 On appeal, the Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Woodward’s claim…”
Rice v. Dow Chem. Co., 875 P.2d 1213 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 3× “Under this Act, the "borrowing statute”, RCW 4.18.020, indicates that there is first a determination of which state’s substantive law applies before there is any consideration of which state’s statute of limitation applies.”
Hein v. Taco Bell, Inc., 803 P.2d 329 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “The general rules embodied in the act are found in RCW 4.18.020, .030, and .040. These sections provide, in part: (1) Except as provided by RCW 4.”
Williams v. State, 885 P.2d 845 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “As the Washington Supreme Court has recently noted, the specific issue of "limitation periods [is] not subject to conflict of laws methodology” since Washington adopted the Uniform Conflict of Laws — Limitation Act (UCLLA) in 1983, codified as RCW 4.18.020. 1 Rice, 124 Wn.2d at…”
Unifund Ccr Partners v. Sunde, 260 P.3d 915 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “040 states, If the court determines that the limitation period of another state applicable under RCW 4.18.020 and 4.18.030 is substantially different from the limitation period of this state and has not afforded a fair opportunity to sue upon, or imposes an unfair burden in…”
Kornfeind, W. v. New Werner Holding Co., 241 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). “1994) (“We hold that statutes of repose do not fall under the statute of limitations borrowing statute, RCW 4.18.020, but instead may raise a conflict of substantive law.”
Ellis v. Barto, 918 P.2d 540 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.18.020(l)(a). 2 For purposes of determining which state’s substantive law applies to the merits of a tort claim, Washington has adopted the most significant relationship rule.”
JM Vidal, Inc. v. Texdis USA, Inc., 764 F. Supp. 2d 599 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “Here, Plaintiffs claims under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act are, of course, governed by Washington’s substantive law.”
Kerry L. Erickson, V. Pharmacia Llc., 548 P.3d 226 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Thus, to that end, the courts in those cases performed the “most significant relationship” analysis as set out in Restatement (Second) § 145. 8 The treatment of statutes of repose differs from that of statutes of limitations.”
Fields v. Legacy Health Sys., 413 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “450, if a claim is substantively based: (a) Upon the law of one other state, the limitation period of that state applies; or (b) Upon the law of more than one state, the limita- tion period of one of those states, chosen by the law of conflict of laws of this state, applies.”
Woodward v. Taylor, 340 P.3d 869 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “Under RCW 4.18.020, in cases involving disputes over which a statute of limitations applies, courts must first determine which state’s substantive law forms the basis of the plaintiff’s claims.”
Woodward v. Taylor (Wash. 2016). · cites it 5× “" Therefore, the trial court held that Idaho's substantive law applied to the case and, hence, Idaho's two-year statute of limitations applied pursuant to RCW 4.18.020. 1 On appeal, the Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Woodward's claim as…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.18.020(1)(a) — 1 case
Unifund Ccr Partners v. Sunde, 260 P.3d 915 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “040 states, If the court determines that the limitation period of another state applicable under RCW 4.18.020 and 4.18.030 is substantially different from the limitation period of this state and has not afforded a fair opportunity to sue upon, or imposes an unfair burden in…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.18.020(1)(b) — 1 case
Williams v. State, 885 P.2d 845 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “As the Washington Supreme Court has recently noted, the specific issue of "limitation periods [is] not subject to conflict of laws methodology” since Washington adopted the Uniform Conflict of Laws — Limitation Act (UCLLA) in 1983, codified as RCW 4.18.020. 1 Rice, 124 Wn.2d at…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.18.020(2)(b) — 1 case
Williams v. State, 885 P.2d 845 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “As the Washington Supreme Court has recently noted, the specific issue of "limitation periods [is] not subject to conflict of laws methodology” since Washington adopted the Uniform Conflict of Laws — Limitation Act (UCLLA) in 1983, codified as RCW 4.18.020. 1 Rice, 124 Wn.2d at…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.18.020(l)(a) — 4 cases
Woodward v. Taylor, 366 P.3d 432 (Wash. 2016). “” Therefore, the trial court held that Idaho’s substantive law applied to the case and, hence, Idaho’s two-year statute of limitations applied pursuant to RCW 4.18.020. 1 ¶7 On appeal, the Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Woodward’s claim…”
Ellis v. Barto, 918 P.2d 540 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “RCW 4.18.020(l)(a). 2 For purposes of determining which state’s substantive law applies to the merits of a tort claim, Washington has adopted the most significant relationship rule.”
Hein v. Taco Bell, Inc., 803 P.2d 329 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “The general rules embodied in the act are found in RCW 4.18.020, .030, and .040. These sections provide, in part: (1) Except as provided by RCW 4.”
Woodward v. Taylor, 340 P.3d 869 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “Under RCW 4.18.020, in cases involving disputes over which a statute of limitations applies, courts must first determine which state’s substantive law forms the basis of the plaintiff’s claims.”
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.