Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.72
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.060 (2026)

Length of time product sellers are subject to liability

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Useful safe life. (a) Except as provided in subsection (1)(b) hereof, a product seller shall not be subject to liability to a claimant for harm under this chapter if the product seller proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the harm was caused after the product's "useful safe life" had expired.
"Useful safe life" begins at the time of delivery of the product and extends for the time during which the product would normally be likely to perform or be stored in a safe manner. For the purposes of this chapter, "time of delivery" means the time of delivery of a product to its first purchaser or lessee who was not engaged in the business of either selling such products or using them as component parts of another product to be sold. In the case of a product which has been remanufactured by a manufacturer, "time of delivery" means the time of delivery of the remanufactured product to its first purchaser or lessee who was not engaged in the business of either selling such products or using them as component parts of another product to be sold.
(b) A product seller may be subject to liability for harm caused by a product used beyond its useful safe life, if:
(i) The product seller has warranted that the product may be utilized safely for such longer period; or
(ii) The product seller intentionally misrepresents facts about its product, or intentionally conceals information about it, and that conduct was a proximate cause of the claimant's harm; or
(iii) The harm was caused by exposure to a defective product, which exposure first occurred within the useful safe life of the product, even though the harm did not manifest itself until after the useful safe life had expired.
(2) Presumption regarding useful safe life. If the harm was caused more than twelve years after the time of delivery, a presumption arises that the harm was caused after the useful safe life had expired. This presumption may only be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.
(3) Statute of limitation. Subject to the applicable provisions of chapter 4.16 RCW pertaining to the tolling and extension of any statute of limitation, no claim under this chapter may be brought more than three years from the time the claimant discovered or in the exercise of due diligence should have discovered the harm and its cause.
[ 1981 c 27 s 7.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: North Coast Air Servs., Ltd. v. Grumman Corp., 759 P.2d 405 (Wash. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
North Coast Air Servs., Ltd. v. Grumman Corp., 759 P.2d 405 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 40× “060 clearly seek a reasonable conclusion as to the time wherein an action may be brought: three years from the time the claimant discovered or in the exercise of due diligence should have discovered the harm and its cause" as opposed to the idea that the claimant knew each and…”
Brewer v. Dodson Aviation, 447 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (W.D. Wash. 2006). · cites it 10× “§ 1-50(a)(6) with RCW § 7.72.060. Plaintiffs have not made any effort to argue that there are no actual conflicts on these issues.”
Rice v. Dow Chem. Co., 875 P.2d 1213 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 4× “If the act does apply, RCW 7.72.060(1)(a) provides for repose for product sellers if the harm was caused after the product’s useful safe life has expired.”
Hibbard v. Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca & O'Hern, 826 P.2d 690 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 3× “36 a products liability claim certified to this court by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, this court concluded that the claimant must have discovered, or in the exercise of due diligence should have discovered, a factual causal…”
Green v. A.P.C., 960 P.2d 912 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 3× “080(2), the general stat *95 ute for negligence claims, or RCW 7.72.060(3), the statute for claims under Washington’s product liability and tort reform act of 1981.”
Martin v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 61 P.3d 1196 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “RCW 7.72.060. A claimant may rebut this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence that the useful safe life exceeds twelve years.”
Martin v. Humbert Constr., Inc., 61 P.3d 1196 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “Washington’s statute of repose, RCW 7.72.060(2), provides a rebuttable presumption that a product’s useful safe life expires 12 years after delivery.”
Kerry L. Erickson, V. Pharmacia Llc., 548 P.3d 226 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 5× “” RCW 7.72.060. WPLA’s statute of repose establishes that “a product seller shall not be subject to liability to a claimant for harm under this chapter if the product seller proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the harm was caused after the product’s 9 It is not…”
Hodder v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 426 N.W.2d 826 (Minn. 1988). · cites it 2× “§ 29-28-103 (1980); Wash.Rev.Code § 7.72.060 (Supp.1987). Arkansas explicitly provides that use of a product beyond its "anticipated life" is an element of comparative fault.”
Green v. APC (Am. Pharm. Co.), 960 P.2d 912 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 3× “080(2), the general statute for negligence claims, or RCW 7.72.060(3), the statute for claims under Washington's product liability and tort reform act of 1981.”
Lo v. Honda Motor Co., 869 P.2d 1114 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “2d 405 (1988) in which our Supreme Court rejected arguments bearing a striking similarity to the arguments raised by Petitioners, including an argument that by adopting RCW 7.72.060(3) 7 the Legislature clearly intended to overrule Ohler v.”
Zenaida-Garcia v. Recovery Sys. Tech., Inc., 128 Wash. App. 256 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “RCW 7.72.060(1)(a). Or Rev. Stat. § 30.905(1) (“a product liability civil action may not be brought for any death, personal injury or property damage that is caused by a product and that occurs more than eight years after the date on which the product was first purchased for use…”
Show all 59 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.060(1) — 5 cases
EPIC, a non-profit Corp. v. CliftonLarsonAllen LLP, 199 Wash. App. 257 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Kerry L. Erickson, V. Pharmacia Llc., 548 P.3d 226 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “” RCW 7.72.060. WPLA’s statute of repose establishes that “a product seller shall not be subject to liability to a claimant for harm under this chapter if the product seller proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the harm was caused after the product’s 9 It is not…”
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Broan-Nutone LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025).
Erickson v. Pharmacia LLC (Wash. 2025).
Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Samsung Elec. Am. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.060(1)(2) — 1 case
Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Samsung Elec. Am. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.060(1)(a) — 6 cases
Martin v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 61 P.3d 1196 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 7.72.060. A claimant may rebut this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence that the useful safe life exceeds twelve years.”
Rice v. Dow Chem. Co., 875 P.2d 1213 (Wash. 1994). “If the act does apply, RCW 7.72.060(1)(a) provides for repose for product sellers if the harm was caused after the product’s useful safe life has expired.”
Zenaida-Garcia v. Recovery Sys. Tech., Inc., 128 Wash. App. 256 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 7.72.060(1)(a). Or Rev. Stat. § 30.905(1) (“a product liability civil action may not be brought for any death, personal injury or property damage that is caused by a product and that occurs more than eight years after the date on which the product was first purchased for use…”
Zenaida-garcia v. Recovery Sys. Tech., 115 P.3d 1017 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Samsung Elec. Am. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.060(1)(b) — 1 case
Kerry L. Erickson, V. Pharmacia Llc., 548 P.3d 226 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “” RCW 7.72.060. WPLA’s statute of repose establishes that “a product seller shall not be subject to liability to a claimant for harm under this chapter if the product seller proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the harm was caused after the product’s 9 It is not…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.060(1)(b)(i) — 1 case
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Broan-Nutone LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.060(1)(b)(iii) — 1 case
Rice v. Dow Chem. Co., 875 P.2d 1213 (Wash. 1994). “If the act does apply, RCW 7.72.060(1)(a) provides for repose for product sellers if the harm was caused after the product’s useful safe life has expired.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.060(2) — 10 cases
Brewer v. Dodson Aviation, 447 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (W.D. Wash. 2006). “§ 1-50(a)(6) with RCW § 7.72.060. Plaintiffs have not made any effort to argue that there are no actual conflicts on these issues.”
Rice v. Dow Chem. Co., 875 P.2d 1213 (Wash. 1994). “If the act does apply, RCW 7.72.060(1)(a) provides for repose for product sellers if the harm was caused after the product’s useful safe life has expired.”
Zenaida-Garcia v. Recovery Sys. Tech., Inc., 128 Wash. App. 256 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 7.72.060(1)(a). Or Rev. Stat. § 30.905(1) (“a product liability civil action may not be brought for any death, personal injury or property damage that is caused by a product and that occurs more than eight years after the date on which the product was first purchased for use…”
Zenaida-garcia v. Recovery Sys. Tech., 115 P.3d 1017 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
Martin v. Humbert Constr., Inc., 61 P.3d 1196 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Washington’s statute of repose, RCW 7.72.060(2), provides a rebuttable presumption that a product’s useful safe life expires 12 years after delivery.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.060(3) — 29 cases
North Coast Air Servs., Ltd. v. Grumman Corp., 759 P.2d 405 (Wash. 1988). “060 clearly seek a reasonable conclusion as to the time wherein an action may be brought: three years from the time the claimant discovered or in the exercise of due diligence should have discovered the harm and its cause" as opposed to the idea that the claimant knew each and…”
Hibbard v. Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca & O'Hern, 826 P.2d 690 (Wash. 1992). “36 a products liability claim certified to this court by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, this court concluded that the claimant must have discovered, or in the exercise of due diligence should have discovered, a factual causal…”
Green v. A.P.C., 960 P.2d 912 (Wash. 1998). “080(2), the general stat *95 ute for negligence claims, or RCW 7.72.060(3), the statute for claims under Washington’s product liability and tort reform act of 1981.”
Green v. APC (Am. Pharm. Co.), 960 P.2d 912 (Wash. 1998). “080(2), the general statute for negligence claims, or RCW 7.72.060(3), the statute for claims under Washington's product liability and tort reform act of 1981.”
Lo v. Honda Motor Co., 869 P.2d 1114 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “2d 405 (1988) in which our Supreme Court rejected arguments bearing a striking similarity to the arguments raised by Petitioners, including an argument that by adopting RCW 7.72.060(3) 7 the Legislature clearly intended to overrule Ohler v.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.060(l)(a) — 2 cases
Brewer v. Dodson Aviation, 447 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (W.D. Wash. 2006). “§ 1-50(a)(6) with RCW § 7.72.060. Plaintiffs have not made any effort to argue that there are no actual conflicts on these issues.”
Martin v. Humbert Constr., Inc., 61 P.3d 1196 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Washington’s statute of repose, RCW 7.72.060(2), provides a rebuttable presumption that a product’s useful safe life expires 12 years after delivery.”
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.