Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.92
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.110 (2026)

✓ 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 subject to the claim filing requirements of RCW 4.92.100 shall be commenced against the state, or against any state officer, employee, or volunteer, acting in such capacity, for damages arising out of tortious conduct until sixty calendar days have elapsed after the claim is presented to the office of risk management in the department of enterprise services. The applicable period of limitations within which an action must be commenced shall be tolled during the sixty calendar day period. For the purposes of the applicable period of limitations, an action commenced within five court days after the sixty calendar day period has elapsed is deemed to have been presented on the first day after the sixty calendar day period elapsed.
[ 2015 c 225 s 5; 2009 c 433 s 3; 2006 c 82 s 2; 2002 c 332 s 13; 1989 c 419 s 14; 1986 c 126 s 8; 1979 c 151 s 4; 1977 ex.s. c 144 s 3; 1963 c 159 s 4.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective date—2002 c 332: See notes following RCW 43.19.760.
Intent—Effective date—1989 c 419: See notes following RCW 4.92.006.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Blair v. Washington State Univ., 740 P.2d 1379 (Wash. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Blair v. Washington State Univ., 740 P.2d 1379 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 34× “The plaintiffs now appeal (1) the exclusion of football from the court's calculations for sports participation and scholarships; (2) the trial court's decision to allow each sport to benefit from the revenue it generates; (3) the reduction of the attorney fee award; and (4) the…”
Mercer v. State, 739 P.2d 703 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 27× “* Betty Brookshire Mercer appeals from a dismissal of a wrongful death action for failure to comply with the nonclaim statute, former RCW 4.92.110. We affirm. Facts The facts of this case are undisputed.”
Miotke v. City of Spokane, 678 P.2d 803 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 8× “(SEPA) give rise to an additional action in damages for infringement of plaintiffs' fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment; we reject defendants' arguments that plaintiffs' actions are precluded by the doctrine of eminent domain, by the discretionary nature…”
Hall v. Niemer, 649 P.2d 98 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 7× “2d 261 (1980), we upheld RCW 4.92.110's requirement of filing a claim with the State as a condition precedent to bringing suit.”
Jones v. Univ. of Washington, 814 P.2d 1236 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 24× “[ 1 ] On September 14, 1990, apparently after the statute of limitations had run, the State filed a motion for summary judgment, based on Jones' failure to comply with former RCW 4.”
Kleyer v. Harborview Med. Ctr., 887 P.2d 468 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 10× “RCW 4.92.110 and .210(1) require individuals with tort claims against the State of Washington to file a claim with that office 60 days before commencing an action against the State.”
Andrews v. State, 829 P.2d 250 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 14× “It argued that the court erred in refusing to dismiss the action for Andrews's noncompliance with RCW 4.92.110. A commissioner of this court granted discretionary review.”
Peterick v. State, 589 P.2d 250 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 5× “100 and RCW 4.92.110. RCW 4.92.110, claimed by the plaintiffs to have been deemed unconstitutional in Hunter , reads as follows: 4.”
Schmitz v. State, 843 P.2d 1109 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 10× “On October 16, 1991, the trial court dismissed Schmitz's claim against the State for failure to comply with the claim filing requirements of RCW 4.92.110. 1 Schmitz filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied.”
Levy v. State, 957 P.2d 1272 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 7× “” In Miotke , the Supreme Court held that the state waived its objection to the owner’s failure to file a claim pursuant to RCW 4.92.110 because substantial litigation had occurred before the defense was raised.”
Pirtle v. Spokane Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 81, 83 Wash. App. 304 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “020 and RCW 4.92.110 3 (actions against the state) are upheld as constitutional if their procedural burdens are reasonable and do not constitute substantial impediments for governmental tort victims.”
Hardesty v. Stenchever, 917 P.2d 577 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “Under RCW 4.92.110, the plaintiff must wait 60 days after filing a claim with the risk management office before initiating a lawsuit.”
Show all 78 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.