Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.70
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.70.070 (2026)

Dealers—Bond required, exceptions—Actions—Cancellation of license

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Before issuing a vehicle dealer's license, the department shall require the applicant to file with the department a surety bond in the amount of:
(a) Thirty thousand dollars for motor vehicle dealers;
(b) Thirty thousand dollars for mobile home, park trailer, and travel trailer dealers;
(c) Five thousand dollars for miscellaneous dealers,
running to the state, and executed by a surety company authorized to do business in the state. Such bond shall be approved by the attorney general as to form and conditioned that the dealer shall conduct his or her business in conformity with the provisions of this chapter.
Any retail purchaser, consignor who is not a motor vehicle dealer, or a motor vehicle dealer who has purchased from, sold to, or otherwise transacted business with a wholesale dealer, who has suffered any loss or damage by reason of any act by a dealer which constitutes a violation of this chapter shall have the right to institute an action for recovery against such dealer and the surety upon such bond. However, under this section, motor vehicle dealers who have purchased from, sold to, or otherwise transacted business with wholesale dealers may only institute actions against wholesale dealers and their surety bonds. Successive recoveries against said bond shall be permitted, but the aggregate liability of the surety to all persons shall in no event exceed the amount of the bond. Upon exhaustion of the penalty of said bond or cancellation of the bond by the surety the vehicle dealer license shall automatically be deemed canceled.
(2) The bond for any vehicle dealer licensed or to be licensed under more than one classification shall be the highest bond required for any such classification.
(3) Vehicle dealers shall maintain a bond for each business location in this state and bond coverage for all temporary subagencies.
[ 2001 c 272 s 13; (2017 c 15 s 6 repealed by 2018 c 273 s 2); 1996 c 194 s 2; 1989 c 337 s 15; 1986 c 241 s 11; 1981 c 152 s 1; 1973 1st ex.s. c 132 s 8; 1971 ex.s. c 74 s 4; 1967 ex.s. c 74 s 27; 1961 c 239 s 1; 1961 c 12 s 46.70.070. Prior: 1959 c 166 s 19; 1951 c 150 s 8.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1962–2025 · leading case: Quinn v. Cherry Lane Auto Plaza, Inc., 225 P.3d 266 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Quinn v. Cherry Lane Auto Plaza, Inc., 225 P.3d 266 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “” RCW 46.70.310. Mr. Quinn argues that the language “knowledge or intent to defraud” in the court’s conclusion shows that the trial court misconstrued the state statutes and imposed an intent requirement to go along with the knowledge element.”
Wells v. Aetna Ins., 376 P.2d 644 (Wash. 1962). · cites it 3× “We believe it apparent from the history of RCW 46.70.070 (See footnote 1) that the surety on the bond of a “double-dealing” motor vehicle dealer is liable for the loss resulting from the perfidy of the principal, under the circumstances of the instant case.”
Jindra v. Golden West, 758 P.2d 518 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 5× “190, notwithstanding RCW 46.70.070 and 46.70.900." The only issue in this case is whether appellants' claims against the bonding company, provided for under RCW 46.”
Williams v. W. Sur. Co., 492 P.2d 596 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 3× “RCW 46.70.070 sets forth the terms and conditions of recovery under a motor vehicle dealer license bond.”
Home Indem. Co. v. McClellan Motors, Inc., 459 P.2d 389 (Wash. 1969). · cites it 2× “Carpenter asserts two bases for his claim against the bond: (1) his personal rights against the bond by virtue of *3 RCW 46.70.070; and (2) his rights as assignee of Mr.”
Brittingham Leasing Corp. v. Szymanski, 766 P.2d 495 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 7× “In September 1984, CBIC became the surety on a $15,000 statutory motor vehicle dealer's license bond, required by RCW 46.70.070, which named Gary Szymanski (d/b/a Exotics Unlimited) as principal.”
Franks v. Meyer, 487 P.2d 632 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 9× “The appellant United Pacific Insurance Company was surety on a motor vehicle dealer’s bond in the amount of $10,000, which Rainway Manufacturing Company was required to post pursuant to RCW 46.70.070. Appellants were awarded judgment against Rainway Manufacturing Company, Harold…”
Walker v. Wenatchee Valley Truck & Auto Outlet, 229 P.3d 871 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “In Jindra , purchasers sued a dealership for breach of warranty under RCW 46.70.070(1) after their mobile home was found to be contaminated with formaldehyde.”
Auto Value Lease Plan, Inc. v. Am. Auto Lease Brokerage, Ltd., 788 P.2d 601 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “former RCW 46.70.070(l)(d) (1986) provides in pertinent part as follows: "Any retail purchaser who shall have suffered any loss or damage by reason of breach of warranty or by any act by a dealer which constitutes a violation of this chapter shall have the right to institute an…”
Francis Clark, et ux v. Jr's Quality Cars, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “As required by RCW 46.70.070, JR'S holds a surety bond through Capitol.”
Robert Mielke, V. Tacoma Rv Ctr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “16A RCW may institute an action for recovery against the dealer and the surety bond as set forth in RCW 46.70.070. RCW 46.70.027 (emphasis added).”
Debra Stevens, Appellant/cr-respondent V. Craig Jonov, M.d., Respondent/cr-appellants (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “” 26 Stevens cites to RCW 46.70.070, stating that it “provides, ‘[v]iolations of this chapter are not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.70.070(1) — 5 cases
Quinn v. Cherry Lane Auto Plaza, Inc., 225 P.3d 266 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “” RCW 46.70.310. Mr. Quinn argues that the language “knowledge or intent to defraud” in the court’s conclusion shows that the trial court misconstrued the state statutes and imposed an intent requirement to go along with the knowledge element.”
Walker v. Wenatchee Valley Truck & Auto Outlet, 229 P.3d 871 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “In Jindra , purchasers sued a dealership for breach of warranty under RCW 46.70.070(1) after their mobile home was found to be contaminated with formaldehyde.”
Jindra v. Golden West, 758 P.2d 518 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “190, notwithstanding RCW 46.70.070 and 46.70.900." The only issue in this case is whether appellants' claims against the bonding company, provided for under RCW 46.”
Brittingham Leasing Corp. v. Szymanski, 766 P.2d 495 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “In September 1984, CBIC became the surety on a $15,000 statutory motor vehicle dealer's license bond, required by RCW 46.70.070, which named Gary Szymanski (d/b/a Exotics Unlimited) as principal.”
Francis Clark, et ux v. Jr's Quality Cars, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “As required by RCW 46.70.070, JR'S holds a surety bond through Capitol.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.70.070(l)(c) — 1 case
Francis Clark, et ux v. Jr's Quality Cars, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “As required by RCW 46.70.070, JR'S holds a surety bond through Capitol.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.70.070(l)(d) — 1 case
Auto Value Lease Plan, Inc. v. Am. Auto Lease Brokerage, Ltd., 788 P.2d 601 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “former RCW 46.70.070(l)(d) (1986) provides in pertinent part as follows: "Any retail purchaser who shall have suffered any loss or damage by reason of breach of warranty or by any act by a dealer which constitutes a violation of this chapter shall have the right to institute an…”
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.