Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.20
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.20.050 (2026)

Action not abated by death or disability if it survives—Substitution

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No action shall abate by the death, marriage, or other disability of the party, or by the transfer of any interest therein, if the cause of action survives or continues; but the court may at any time within one year thereafter, on motion, allow the action to be continued by or against his or her representatives or successors in interest.
[ 2011 c 336 s 91; Code 1881 s 17; 1877 p 6 s 17; 1869 p 6 s 17; 1854 p 132 s 11; RRS s 193.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Cf. RAP 3.2, 18.22.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1961–2017 · leading case: Barker v. Mora, 764 P.2d 1014 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Barker v. Mora, 764 P.2d 1014 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 9× “Defendants cross-moved for dismissal on the basis that RCW 4.20.050 requires that the substitution must occur within 1 year of the death of the plaintiff and that failure to do so results in the abatement of the action.”
Gray v. Goodson, 378 P.2d 413 (Wash. 1963). · cites it 4× “As the substitution of a party plaintiff must be made within one year, according to RCW 4.20.050, the substitution of Gladys Gray in September of 1960 was subject to attack.”
Stella Sales, Inc. v. Johnson, 985 P.2d 391 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “When a party to a lawsuit dies, the cause of action survives, but the action must be continued by or against the deceased party’s representatives or successors in interest.”
Sutton v. Hirvonen, 775 P.2d 448 (Wash. 1989). “Although Allstate had contracted to provide defense counsel for its insured, that counsel could represent only a proper party defendant.”
Franks v. Douglas, 358 P.2d 969 (Wash. 1961). “Second, plaintiff urges that RCW 4.20.050, which provides: “Action not abated by death or disability if it survives— Substitution.”
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Eldon Dillon & Dorothy Ann Clark (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “050 1 and seizing on the resolution of Himes, the estate argues that when other interests--such as ownership of property-----continue to exist despite the death of one of the parties to the marriage, it is appropriate to continue the action. The estate mistakenly applies Himes…”
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.