Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.96.020 (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) The provisions of this section apply to claims for damages against all local governmental entities and their officers, employees, or volunteers, acting in such capacity.

(2) The governing body of each local governmental entity shall appoint an agent to receive any claim for damages made under this chapter. The identity of the agent and the address where he or she may be reached during the normal business hours of the local governmental entity are public records and shall be recorded with the auditor of the county in which the entity is located. All claims for damages against a local governmental entity, or against any local governmental entity's officers, employees, or volunteers, acting in such capacity, shall be presented to the agent within the applicable period of limitations within which an action must be commenced. A claim is deemed presented when the claim form is delivered in person or is received by the agent by regular mail, registered mail, or certified mail, with return receipt requested, to the agent or other person designated to accept delivery at the agent's office. The failure of a local governmental entity to comply with the requirements of this section precludes that local governmental entity from raising a defense under this chapter.

(3) For claims for damages presented after July 26, 2009, all claims for damages must be presented on the standard tort claim form that is maintained by the office of risk management in the department of enterprise services, except as allowed under (c) of this subsection. The standard tort claim form must be posted on the department of enterprise services' website.

(a) The standard tort claim form must, at a minimum, require the following information:

(i) The claimant's name, date of birth, and contact information;

(ii) A description of the conduct and the circumstances that brought about the injury or damage;

(iii) A description of the injury or damage;

(iv) A statement of the time and place that the injury or damage occurred;

(v) A listing of the names of all persons involved and contact information, if known;

(vi) A statement of the amount of damages claimed; and

(vii) A statement of the actual residence of the claimant at the time of presenting the claim and at the time the claim arose.

(b) The standard tort claim form must be signed either:

(i) By the claimant, verifying the claim;

(ii) Pursuant to a written power of attorney, by the attorney-in-fact for the claimant;

(iii) By an attorney admitted to practice in Washington state on the claimant's behalf; or

(iv) By a court-approved guardian or guardian ad litem on behalf of the claimant.

(c) Local governmental entities shall make available the standard tort claim form described in this section with instructions on how the form is to be presented and the name, address, and business hours of the agent of the local governmental entity. If a local governmental entity chooses to also make available its own tort claim form in lieu of the standard tort claim form, the form:

(i) May require additional information beyond what is specified under this section, but the local governmental entity may not deny a claim because of the claimant's failure to provide that additional information;

(ii) Must not require the claimant's social security number; and

(iii) Must include instructions on how the form is to be presented and the name, address, and business hours of the agent of the local governmental entity appointed to receive the claim.

(d) If any claim form provided by the local governmental entity fails to require the information specified in this section, or incorrectly lists the agent with whom the claim is to be filed, the local governmental entity is deemed to have waived any defense related to the failure to provide that specific information or to present the claim to the proper designated agent.

(e) Presenting either the standard tort claim form or the local government tort claim form satisfies the requirements of this chapter.

(f) The amount of damages stated on the claim form is not admissible at trial.

(4) No action subject to the claim filing requirements of this section shall be commenced against any local governmental entity, or against any local governmental entity's officers, employees, or volunteers, acting in such capacity, for damages arising out of tortious conduct until sixty calendar days have elapsed after the claim has first been presented to the agent of the governing body thereof. 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.

(5) With respect to the content of claims under this section and all procedural requirements in this section, this section must be liberally construed so that substantial compliance will be deemed satisfactory.

[ 2015 c 225 s 6; 2012 c 250 s 2; 2009 c 433 s 1; 2006 c 82 s 3; 2001 c 119 s 2; 1993 c 449 s 3; 1967 c 164 s 4.]

Notes:

Purpose—Severability—1993 c 449: See notes following RCW 4.96.010.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 199 cases (52 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Medina v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 53 P.3d 993 (Wash. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Medina v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 53 P.3d 993 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 48× “King County In an argument raised for the first time in supplemental briefing, Medina urges this court to "simply follow Hanford." Supplemental Br.”

Medina v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 147 Wash. 2d 303 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 46× “Medina argues that the legislature is presumed to have been aware of Hanford’s holding when it adopted RCW 4.96.020. Although not entirely clear, Medina seems to argue that the legislature must have intended that the 60-day waiting requirement not apply once the county has…”

Troxell v. Rainier Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 307, 154 Wash. 2d 345 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 32× “on Monday, December 10, 2001, Troxell served on the District a tort claim notice pursuant to RCW 4.96.020. Troxell alleged in the notice that, on December 17, 1998, she fell in the unlighted parking lot at Rainier High School, injuring her left leg.”

Troxell v. Rainier Pub. Sch. Dist. 307, 111 P.3d 1173 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 32× “on Monday, December 10, 2001, Troxell served on the District a tort claim notice pursuant to RCW 4.96.020. Troxell alleged in the notice that, on December 17, 1998, she fell in the unlighted parking lot at Rainier High School, injuring her left leg.”

Lee v. Metro Parks Tacoma, 335 P.3d 1014 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 33× “The amended complaint added Metro Parks as a defendant, specifically alleging that Metro Parks was a municipal agency. ¶4 Metro Parks and the Foundation subsequently moved for summary judgment on the ground that Lee did not wait 60 days after submitting her tort claim before…”

Bosteder v. City of Renton, 117 P.3d 316 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 25× “Included in the complaint was a provision stating that "if a claim for damages must be filed as a prerequisite for bringing this action," Bosteder would "seek to amend this Complaint after the waiting period required under RCW 4.96.020." CP at 5. RCW 4.96.020(4) provides: No…”

Bosteder v. City of Renton, 155 Wash. 2d 18 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 19× “Included in the complaint was a provision stating that “if a claim for damages must be filed as a prerequisite for bringing this action,” Bosteder would “seek to amend this Complaint after the waiting period required under RCW 4.96.020.” CP at 5. RCW 4.96-.020(4) provides: No…”

Renner v. City of Marysville, 168 Wash. 2d 540 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 21× “Issue 17 Did Renner substantially comply with the claim filing statute, former RCW 4.96.020, when he described his damages rather than give an actual number and when he failed to include all addresses? *545 Analysis ¶8 We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.”

Renner v. City of Marysville, 230 P.3d 569 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 21× “ISSUE ¶ 7 Did Renner substantially comply with the claim filing statute, former RCW 4.96.020, when he described his damages rather than give an actual number and when he failed to include all addresses? ANALYSIS ¶ 8 We review questions of statutory *571 interpretation de novo.”

Fast v. Kennewick Pub. Hosp. Dist., 354 P.3d 858 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 29× “¶9 Several months later, the three defendants moved for summary judgment dismissal of the complaint on grounds that the Fasts failed to comply with the local government tort claim statute, RCW 4.96.020, which requires that claimants give 60 days’ notice before filing suit…”

Harberd v. City of Kettle Falls, 84 P.3d 1241 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 14× “(4) No action shall be commenced against any local governmental entity for damages arising out of tortious conduct until sixty days have elapsed after the claim has first been presented to and filed with the governing body thereof.”

Castro v. Stanwood Sch. Dist. No. 401, 86 P.3d 1166 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 11× “3d 993 (2002), asserting that Medina clarified that the tolling provision only acts to extend the otherwise applicable statute of limitations, if necessary, until the end of the 60-day "waiting period" after filing a nonjudicial claim under RCW 4.96.020. Under this…”

Show all 199 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.96.020(1) — 12 cases

Harberd v. City of Kettle Falls, 84 P.3d 1241 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “(4) No action shall be commenced against any local governmental entity for damages arising out of tortious conduct until sixty days have elapsed after the claim has first been presented to and filed with the governing body thereof.”

Harberd v. City of Kettle Falls, 84 P.3d 1241 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).

Wilson v. City of Seattle, 863 P.2d 1336 (Wash. 1993).

Jenkins v. State, 540 P.2d 1363 (Wash. 1975).

Wyant v. City of Lynnwood, 621 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (W.D. Wash. 2008).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.96.020(2) — 43 cases

Wilson v. City of Seattle, 863 P.2d 1336 (Wash. 1993).

Fast v. Kennewick Pub. Hosp. Dist., 354 P.3d 858 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “¶9 Several months later, the three defendants moved for summary judgment dismissal of the complaint on grounds that the Fasts failed to comply with the local government tort claim statute, RCW 4.96.020, which requires that claimants give 60 days’ notice before filing suit…”

A.T. v. Everett Sch. Dist., 300 F. Supp. 3d 1243 (W.D. Wash. 2018).

Mavis v. King Cnty. Pub. Hosp. No. 2, 248 P.3d 558 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

Lee v. Metro Parks Tacoma, 335 P.3d 1014 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “The amended complaint added Metro Parks as a defendant, specifically alleging that Metro Parks was a municipal agency. ¶4 Metro Parks and the Foundation subsequently moved for summary judgment on the ground that Lee did not wait 60 days after submitting her tort claim before…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.96.020(3) — 26 cases

Renner v. City of Marysville, 168 Wash. 2d 540 (Wash. 2010). “Issue 17 Did Renner substantially comply with the claim filing statute, former RCW 4.96.020, when he described his damages rather than give an actual number and when he failed to include all addresses? *545 Analysis ¶8 We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.”

Renner v. City of Marysville, 230 P.3d 569 (Wash. 2010). “ISSUE ¶ 7 Did Renner substantially comply with the claim filing statute, former RCW 4.96.020, when he described his damages rather than give an actual number and when he failed to include all addresses? ANALYSIS ¶ 8 We review questions of statutory *571 interpretation de novo.”

Gates v. Port of Kalama, 215 P.3d 983 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

Johnson v. King Cnty., 148 Wash. App. 220 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.96.020(3)(a) — 7 cases

Miller v. Sawant (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Farson v. City of Lake Stevens (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Jacquelyn Flaherty, V. Seattle Pub. Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.96.020(3)(a)(i) — 1 case

Dold v. Snohomish Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2021).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.96.020(3)(a)(ii) — 1 case

Dold v. Snohomish Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2021).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.96.020(3)(b) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.96.020(3)(c) — 5 cases

Natassha Chavis V. City Of Des Moines (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

Shane Fast v. Kennewick Pub. Hosp. Dist. d/b/a Kennewick Gen. Hosp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).

State Of Washington, Et Ano., V. Danielle Sterling & Darren Sterling (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).

Jacquelyn Flaherty, V. Seattle Pub. Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.96.020(3)(d) — 1 case

Natassha Chavis V. City Of Des Moines (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.96.020(3)(e) — 1 case

Jacquelyn Flaherty, V. Seattle Pub. Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.96.020(4) — 112 cases

Medina v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 53 P.3d 993 (Wash. 2002). “King County In an argument raised for the first time in supplemental briefing, Medina urges this court to "simply follow Hanford." Supplemental Br.”

Medina v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 147 Wash. 2d 303 (Wash. 2002). “Medina argues that the legislature is presumed to have been aware of Hanford’s holding when it adopted RCW 4.96.020. Although not entirely clear, Medina seems to argue that the legislature must have intended that the 60-day waiting requirement not apply once the county has…”

Troxell v. Rainier Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 307, 154 Wash. 2d 345 (Wash. 2005). “on Monday, December 10, 2001, Troxell served on the District a tort claim notice pursuant to RCW 4.96.020. Troxell alleged in the notice that, on December 17, 1998, she fell in the unlighted parking lot at Rainier High School, injuring her left leg.”

Troxell v. Rainier Pub. Sch. Dist. 307, 111 P.3d 1173 (Wash. 2005). “on Monday, December 10, 2001, Troxell served on the District a tort claim notice pursuant to RCW 4.96.020. Troxell alleged in the notice that, on December 17, 1998, she fell in the unlighted parking lot at Rainier High School, injuring her left leg.”

Bosteder v. City of Renton, 117 P.3d 316 (Wash. 2005). “Included in the complaint was a provision stating that "if a claim for damages must be filed as a prerequisite for bringing this action," Bosteder would "seek to amend this Complaint after the waiting period required under RCW 4.96.020." CP at 5. RCW 4.96.020(4) provides: No…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.96.020(5) — 16 cases

A.T. v. Everett Sch. Dist., 300 F. Supp. 3d 1243 (W.D. Wash. 2018).

Jacquelyn Flaherty, V. Seattle Pub. Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

John R. Toney v. Lewis Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

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.