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

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.70.190 (2026)

Civil actions for violations—Injunctions—Claims under Federal Automobile Dealer Franchise Act—Time limitation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person who is injured in his or her business or property by a violation of this chapter, or any person so injured because he or she refuses to accede to a proposal for an arrangement which, if consummated, would be in violation of this chapter, may bring a civil action in the superior court to enjoin further violations, to recover the actual damages sustained by him or her together with the costs of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
If a new motor vehicle dealer recovers a judgment or has a claim dismissed with prejudice against a manufacturer under RCW 46.96.040 or 46.96.050(3) or this section, the new motor vehicle dealer is precluded from pursuing that same claim or recovering judgment for that same claim against the same manufacturer under the federal Automobile Dealer Franchise Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1221 through 1225, but only to the extent that the damages recovered by or denied to the new motor vehicle dealer are the same as the damages being sought under the federal Automobile Dealer Franchise Act. Likewise, if a new motor vehicle dealer recovers a judgment or has a claim dismissed with prejudice against a manufacturer under the federal Automobile Dealer Franchise Act, the dealer is precluded from pursuing that same claim or recovering judgment for that same claim against the same manufacturer under this chapter, but only to the extent that the damages recovered by or denied to the dealer are the same as the damages being sought under this chapter.
A civil action brought in the superior court pursuant to the provisions of this section must be filed no later than one year following the alleged violation of this chapter.
[ 2010 c 8 s 9085; 1989 c 415 s 21; 1986 c 241 s 19; 1973 1st ex.s. c 132 s 19; 1967 ex.s. c 74 s 21.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · 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). “180(2)(a) of the dealer practices act. See RCW 46.70.027. *737 Attorney Fees ¶85 Finally, I would grant Mr.”
Walker v. Wenatchee Valley Truck & Auto Outlet, 229 P.3d 871 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “¶ 22 RCW 46.70.190 provides a right of action to "any person who is injured in his business or property by a violation" of chapter 46.”
Jindra v. Golden West, 758 P.2d 518 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 5× “Paul's motion for summary judgment on September 3, 1987, "based upon the one-year statute of limitation of RCW 46.70.190, notwithstanding RCW 46.70.”
Walker v. Wenatchee Valley Truck & Auto Outlet, Inc., 155 Wash. App. 199 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “¶22 RCW 46.70.190 provides a right of action to “any person who is injured in his business or property by a violation” of chapter 46.”
Lopez v. Reynoso, 129 Wash. App. 165 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Lopez does not prevail on appeal, she is not entitled to attorney fees under the sales contract, RCW 46.70.190 (actual damages caused by vehicle dealer unfair practices), or RCW 19.”
Lopez v. Reynoso, 118 P.3d 398 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “70 RCW or chapter 19.86 RCW. Dismissal of Ms. Lopez's complaint and judgment for Mr.”
Banuelos v. TSA Washington, Inc., 141 P.3d 652 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “NOTES [1] We deny the buyers' hearsay objections to the Hertz opening brief.”
Banuelos v. TSA Washington, Inc., 134 Wash. App. 603 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Since the buyers have prevailed on appeal, we grant their request for fees in an amount to be determined by a commissioner of this court.”
Robert Mielke, V. Tacoma Rv Ctr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “We conclude the Mielkes have not raised a genuine issue for trial about whether any violation of the CPA, per se or non per se, caused their injuries.”
Harper v. Dick Hannah Toyota (W.D. Wash. 2022). “See RCW 46.70.190 (a plaintiff “may bring a civil action in the superior court 15 to enjoin further violations, to recover the actual damages sustained by him or her 16 together with the costs of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee”).”
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.