Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.24
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.360 (2026)

Construction contract provision waiving, releasing, etc., rights of contractor, etc., to damages or adjustment for unreasonable delay caused by contractee, etc.—Declared void and unenforceable—Exceptions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any clause in a construction contract, as defined in RCW 4.24.370, which purports to waive, release, or extinguish the rights of a contractor, subcontractor, or supplier to damages or an equitable adjustment arising out of unreasonable delay in performance which delay is caused by the acts or omissions of the contractee or persons acting for the contractee is against public policy and is void and unenforceable.
This section shall not be construed to void any provision in a construction contract, as defined in RCW 4.24.370, which (1) requires notice of delays, (2) provides for arbitration or other procedure for settlement, or (3) provides for reasonable liquidated damages.
[ 1979 ex.s. c 264 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: SCOCCOLO CONST. v. City of Renton, 145 P.3d 371 (Wash. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
SCOCCOLO CONST. v. City of Renton, 145 P.3d 371 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 16× “¶ 1 RCW 4.24.360 invalidates as against public policy "no-damages-for-delay" clauses in construction contracts where the delay is caused by the contractee or "persons acting for" the contractee.”
Scoccolo Constr., Inc. v. City of Renton, 158 Wash. 2d 506 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 16× “RCW 4.24.360 invalidates as against public policy “no-damages-for-delay” clauses in construction contracts where the delay is caused by the contractee or “persons acting for” the contractee.”
Scoccolo Const., Inc. v. City of Renton, 103 P.3d 1249 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 14× “he trial court's earlier decision granting partial summary *1250 judgment to Renton, [1] the trial court ruled that because Renton had franchise agreements authorizing it to compel Puget Sound Power and Light and TCI Cable to relocate their utilities at their own expense during…”
Scoccolo Constr., Inc. v. City of Renton, 125 Wash. App. 150 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 13× “sal of the trial court’s earlier decision granting partial summary judgment to Renton, 1 the trial court ruled that because Renton had franchise agreements authorizing it to compel Puget Sound Power and Light and TCI Cable to relocate their utilities at their own expense during…”
Scoccolo Const., Inc. v. City of Renton, 9 P.3d 886 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 7× “Scoccolo further contends that RCW 4.24.360 renders the clause unenforceable because it "purports to waive, release, or extinguish the rights of a contractor, subcontractor, or supplier to damages or an equitable adjustment arising out of unreasonable delay in performance which…”
Scoccolo Constr., Inc. v. City of Renton, 102 Wash. App. 611 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 7× “Scoccolo further contends that RCW 4.24.360 renders the clause unenforceable because it “purports to waive, release, or extinguish the rights of a contractor, subcontractor, or supplier to damages or an equitable adjustment arising out of unreasonable delay in performance which…”
Absher Constr. Co. v. Kent Sch. Dist. No. 415, 890 P.2d 1071 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Dispute Resolution Absher next argues that the provisions of the contract which require it to give notice of claims and enter into the dispute resolution process are void pursuant to RCW 4.24.360. It argues that the statute makes unenforceable any contract provision waiving a…”
Mike M. Johnson, Inc. v. Cnty. of Spokane, 78 P.3d 161 (Wash. 2003). “[3] One of the issues raised by MMJ in its summary judgment motion, which the trial court did not address, is whether the contract's provision regarding complete forfeiture of the contractor's claim violates RCW 4.24.360. The statute nullified "`no-damages-for-delay'" clauses.”
Hensel Phelps Constr. Co. v. King Cnty., 787 P.2d 58 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “6 At oral argument, Phoenix claimed that both article 14 and article 17 violate RCW 4.24.360, which declares void and unenforceable any construction contract provision that purports to release or waive damages caused by delay.”
Pease & Sons, Inc. v. Turner Constr. Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “360 provides: “Any clause in a construction contract” that “purports to waive, release, or extinguish” a contractor or subcontractor’s rights “to damages or an equitable adjustment arising out of unreasonable delay in performance which delay is caused by the acts or omissions of…”
Henry C. Reitzug v. Skipper Kuzior (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “They sought $1500 in treble damages ($500 tripled under RCW 4.24.360) for the value of the hay Kuzior removed from their property.”
Fife Portal, Llc v. Centurylink, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “630(1) CenturyLink argues that it has no direct liability for treble damages under RCW 4.24.360(1). We agree. RCW 4.24.630(1) provides in part: Every person who goes onto the land of another and who removes timber, crops, minerals, or other similar valuable property from the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.360(1) — 1 case
Fife Portal, Llc v. Centurylink, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “630(1) CenturyLink argues that it has no direct liability for treble damages under RCW 4.24.360(1). We agree. RCW 4.24.630(1) provides in part: Every person who goes onto the land of another and who removes timber, crops, minerals, or other similar valuable property from the…”
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.