{"id":905781,"date":"2026-06-16T16:09:22","date_gmt":"2026-06-16T22:09:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=905781"},"modified":"2026-06-16T16:09:26","modified_gmt":"2026-06-16T22:09:26","slug":"construction-statute-of-repose-analysis-in-washington","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-statute-of-repose-analysis-in-washington\/","title":{"rendered":"Analysis of Polinder v. Brand Insulations, Inc. and the Washington\u00a0Construction\u00a0Statute of Repose"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Fatima Al-Rikabi | Wilson Elser<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Washington Supreme Court\u2019s recent decision in\u00a0Polinder v. Brand Insulations, Inc<\/em>., No. 102782-6 (Wash. Apr. 30, 2026), provides clarifications on how the construction statute of repose<\/a> applies to contractors in asbestos litigation. By resolving conflicting appellate decisions, the Court established a more precise framework for evaluating when a contractor\u2019s historical installation work is shielded from liability and when it is not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background: The Construction Statute of Repose<\/strong>
In Washington, the construction statute of repose, Wash. Rev. Code \u00a7 4.16.300 (2026), applies to claims arising from a person having “constructed, altered or repaired any improvement upon real property.\u201d Wash. Rev. Code \u00a7 4.16.310 (2026) dictates that such claims must accrue within six years of the substantial completion of construction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unlike a traditional statute of limitations, which typically begins to run when a plaintiff discovers an injury, a statute of repose creates a strict outer time limit that extinguishes a cause of action after a specified period, even if the injury has not yet occurred or been discovered. The legislature enacted this statute to protect contractors and engineers from extended potential liability decades after a project is completed. See Hudesman v. Meriwether Leachman Assocs<\/em>., 35 Wn. App. 318, 321, 666 P.2d 937 (1983) (citing Pinneo v. Stevens Pass, Inc<\/em>., 14 Wn. App. 848, 545 P.2d 1207 (1976)); see also 1519-1525 Lakeview Blvd. Condo. Ass’n v. Apt. Sales Corp.<\/em>, 144 Wn.2d 570, 578, 29 P.3d 1249 (2001). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Concept<\/th>Statute of Limitation (SOL)<\/th>Statute of Repose (SOR)<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
Trigger Event<\/th>Accrual of cause of action (discovery of injury)<\/td>Substantial completion of construction services<\/td><\/tr>
Primary Purpose<\/th>Encourages diligent prosecution of known claims<\/td>Provides a date certain for the end of legal liability<\/td><\/tr>
Duration (WA)<\/th>Generally, two-to-three years for torts<\/td>Six years for construction-related activities<\/td><\/tr>
Tolling<\/th>Often tolled by discovery or minority status<\/td>Generally, not tollable (hard outer wall)<\/td><\/tr>
Status of Right<\/th>Bars the remedy<\/td>Extinguishes the underlying right of action<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

For decades, the application of this statute was guided by Condit v. Lewis Refrigeration Co<\/em>., 101 Wash. 2d 106, 676 P.2d 466 (1984), which held that the statute of repose protects individuals whose activities contribute to a structural improvement or to “integral” systems, such as heating or plumbing, that are required for the structure to function as intended. It does not protect manufacturers of heavy equipment or non-integral “accoutrements” housed within a building. Condit<\/em>, 101 Wn.2d at 12.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Applying Condit<\/em> to asbestos-containing industrial insulation led to a split in the Washington appellate courts:<\/p>\n\n\n\n