Court Opinion

ID: 9590494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:55:29.562863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:18.378129
License: Public Domain

Dolliver, J.
(dissenting) — Claiming it makes no difference how RCW 4.16.310 is characterized, the majority holds RCW 4.16.160 to be dispositive. Certainly because of RCW 4.16.160, the State cannot be barred from seeking a remedy in an action it would otherwise be entitled to bring. The *784statute, however, does not create an action where none has previously existed. Statutes of limitation or of repose bar the remedy; they do not extinguish a right or obligation. On the other hand, with a nonclaim statute such as RCW 4.16-.310, there is no remedy to be barred since no right ever came into existence.
This distinction is carefully spelled out in Lane v. Department of Labor & Indus., 21 Wn.2d 420, 425-26, 151 P.2d 440 (1944):
There are two types of statutes which the courts had to apply. One of them is the statute which either by its plain terms or by the construction given it by the court makes the limitation of time inhere in the right or obligation rather than the remedy. It is sometimes referred to as a statute of nonclaim, and, strictly speaking, is not a statute of limitations at all. In its usual form the statute creates some right or obligation and a time is fixed within which the right must be asserted or the obligation sought to be enforced, or the same will be barred. When the limitation period expires, the right or obligation is extinguished and cannot be revived by a subsequent statute enlarging the time limitation. Illustrations of nonclaim statutes in this state are those providing for liens of laborers and materialmen, claims against estates of deceased persons, and claims for damages against municipal corporations.
The other type of statute is one which relates only to the remedy and has nothing to do with any right or obligation, does not inhere in either, and is wholly independent of them. It is a statute of limitations in its strict sense, and, although a remedy may become barred thereunder, the right or obligation is not extinguished. It is a statute of repose.
A review of RCW 4.16 reveals that RCW 4.16.010-.290 (all of which predate RCW 4.16.300-.320 and the majority of which, including RCW 4.16.160, goes back to the Code of 1881) contain no language which "bars" a cause of action. In contrast both RCW 4.16.310 and 4.16.350 (medical malpractice statute) contain language which bars an action if not commenced within the statutory time. "Any cause of *785action which has not accrued within six years after such substantial completion of construction, or within six years after such termination of services, whichever is later, shall be barred". RCW 4.16.310. "Any action not commenced in accordance with this section shall be barred". RCW 4.16-.350(3).
RCW 4.16.310 is a nonclaim statute. In Ruth v. Dight, 75 Wn.2d 660, 669, 453 P.2d 631 (1969), we stated such statutes are mandatory and cannot be enlarged or waived. A claim which never arises cannot be brought to life by RCW 4.16.160.
Under the terms of the statute, the effect of the failure to discover the defect within 6 years and thus have the cause of action accrue is to "not merely withhold the remedy, but to take away the very right of recovery". State v. Evans, 143 Wash. 449, 452, 255 P. 1035, 53 A.L.R. 564 (1927). See also In re Rhodes, 196 Wash. 618, 83 P.2d 896 (1938). "Any cause of action which has not accrued within six years after such substantial completion of construction, or within six years after such termination of services, whichever is later, shall be barred". (Italics mine.) RCW 4.16.310.
The effect of a statute such as RCW 4.16.310 is well formulated by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Rosenberg v. North Bergen, 61 N.J. 190, 199, 293 A.2d 662 (1972):
[The statute] does not bar a cause of action; its effect, rather, is to prevent what might otherwise be a cause of action, from ever arising. Thus injury occurring more than ten years after the negligent act allegedly responsible for the harm, forms no basis for recovery. The injured party literally has no cause of action. The harm that has been done is damnum absque injuria — a wrong for which the law affords no redress. The function of the statute is thus rather to define substantive rights than to alter or modify a remedy.
See also Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 21 Cal. 3d 624, 644, 581 P.2d 197, 147 Cal. Rptr. 486 (1978) (Clark, J., concurring and dissenting); Reith v. County of Mountrail, 104 N.W.2d 667 (N.D. 1960).
The majority cites RCW 4.16.160 as follows:
*786The limitations prescribed in this chapter shall apply to actions brought in the name or for the benefit of any county or other municipality or quasimunicipality of the state, in the same manner as to actions brought by private parties: Provided, That there shall be no limitation to actions brought in the name or for the benefit of the state, and no claim of right predicated upon the lapse of time shall ever be asserted against the state . . .
Majority opinion, at 779-80. The italics of the majority are interesting for what they do and do not include: (1) The phrase "and no claim of right predicated upon the lapse of time" refers not to the circumstances in this case but to adverse possession. As Professor Stoebuck notes:
Before 1903 it was possible, under the ten-year statute, to hold state lands other than shorelands or tidelands adversely, but the adoption of a statute in that year [Laws of 1903, ch. 24, § 1, p. 26; RCW 4.16.160] removed this possibility.
(Footnote omitted.) Stoebuck, The Law of Adverse Possession in Washington, 35 Wash. L. Rev. 53, 58 (1960). The language italicized by the majority is the language of the statute referred to by Professor Stoebuck. (2) While the majority italicizes the term "limitation", it neglects to emphasize those portions of the statute which state the limitations shall be "to actions brought in the name or for the benefit of the state." (Italics mine.)
It seems elementary to me that if no action exists it is irrelevant to be concerned about a limitation on the action. This has also been the position of this court which has consistently held nonclaim statutes apply to the State and that RCW 4.16.160 does not serve to allow the State to ignore the conditions of nonclaim statutes. State v. Evans, supra; In re Rhodes, supra.
As stated by the Supreme Court of Indiana in Bahr v. Zahm, 219 Ind. 297, 302, 37 N.E.2d 942 (1941), quoted with approval in Reith v. County of Mountrail, supra at 672:
It seems to us that the difference between the statutes here involved is basic. The non-claim statute relates to *787the exercise of a right, while the statute relieving the State from the operation of statutes of limitation pertains only to remedies. The non-claim statute imposes a condition precedent to the enforcement of a right of action, while statutes of limitation create defenses that must be pleaded and may be waived. We do not know of any statute or rule of law that relieves the State of Indiana from the obligation to perform conditions precedent upon which the enforcement of a right of action is made to depend.
I believe the correct interpretation of RCW 4.16.310 to be: (1) If the claim or cause of action accrues within 6 years, then and only then will the applicable statute of limitation begin to run. Thus, e.g., if the damage was discovered 5 years after the substantial completion of construction and the applicable statute of limitation was RCW 4.16.040, the action would have to be brought within 6 years of the discovery of the damage or a total of 11 years from the date the damage occurred. (RCW 4.16.160 would toll the statute of limitation but only if the claim had accrued within 6 years.) (2) If the cause of action has not accrued within 6 years, i.e., been discovered by plaintiif, then the cause of action shall be barred. See Gazija v. Nicholas Jerns Co., 86 Wn.2d 215, 543 P.2d 338 (1975).
In 1982, when Bellevue School District filed its lawsuit, it had no claim, it had no action, it had no case. The remedy for this situation is not for this court to rewrite the statute but for school districts to seek legislative relief.
Stafford, Utter, and Brachtenbach, JJ., concur with Dolliver, J.
New argument granted March 13, 1984.