Wash. Rev. Code » Title 54 · Chapter 54.16
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 54.16.110 (2026)

May sue and be sued—Claims

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A district may sue in any court of competent jurisdiction, and may be sued in the county in which its principal office is located or in which it owns or operates facilities. No suit for damages shall be maintained against a district except on a claim filed with the district complying in all respects with the terms and requirements for claims for damages set forth in chapter 4.96 RCW.
[ 1993 c 449 s 11; 1979 ex.s. c 240 s 3; 1955 c 390 s 12. Prior: 1945 c 143 s 1(k); 1931 c 1 s 6(k); Rem. Supp. 1945 s 11610(k).]

Notes:

Purpose—Severability—1993 c 449: See notes following RCW 4.96.010.
Claims against cities of the second class: RCW 35.31.040.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1953–1989 · leading case: EL COBA CO. v. Franklin Cy. PUD, 514 P.2d 524 (Wash. 1973).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
EL COBA CO. v. Franklin Cy. PUD, 514 P.2d 524 (Wash. 1973). · cites it 15× “Defendant PUD answered denying the asserted breach of contract and, as an *860 affirmative defense, alleged plaintiff had not filed a claim against it as required by RCW 54.16.110. Thereafter, based on the affirmative defense, PUD moved for a summary judgment.”
El Coba Co. Dormitories, Inc. v. Franklin Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist., 514 P.2d 524 (Wash. 1973). · cites it 15× “Défendant PUD answered denying the asserted breach of contract and, as an *860 affirmative defense, alleged plaintiff had not filed a claim against it as required by RCW 54.16.110. Thereafter, based on the affirmative defense, PUD moved for a summary judgment.”
Briedablik, Big Valley, Lofall, Edgewater, Surfrest, North End Cmty. Ass'n v. Kitsap Cnty., 652 P.2d 383 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “Actions against public utility districts are governed by RCW 54.16.110. [4] The court stated: As a municipal corporation, [a public utility district] is subject to the same rules of process and procedure as *117 govern other individual or corporate litigants, unless it be by…”
Washington Pub. Util. Districts' Utils. Sys. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 771 P.2d 701 (Wash. 1989). “200; to "sue in any court of competent jurisdiction," RCW 54.16.110; to indemnify their officers and employees against liability claims, RCW 54.”
Gabrielson v. State, 408 P.2d 1020 (Wash. 1965). · cites it 13× “In challenging the ruling of the superior court, petitioner points to RCW 54.16.110 and that section’s antecedents.”
El Coba Co. Dormitories, Inc. v. Franklin Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist., 503 P.2d 1082 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 11× “The PUD answered, denying the breach and affirmatively pled plaintiff had not filed a proper claim against it (RCW 54.16.110). The PUD also cross claimed against IBEW seeking indemnity alleging the union was responsible for any damage plaintiff might recover against the PUD.”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 260 P.2d 315 (Wash. 1953). “” (As codified, RCW 54.16.110 substitutes the word “may” for the word “shall”).”
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.