Implied Warranty of Habitability in Washington

Like most states, Washington recognizes something called the “implied warranty of habitability”—basically, a legal guarantee that landlords will keep their units safe and livable. In Washington, the warranty was established by a series of past court decisions. But tenants are also protected by the Revised Code of Washington, which includes a detailed list of all the things landlords are legally required to provide for a rental unit.

Both the warranty and the Revised Code give tenants the right to a habitable rental. Where they differ is the options they offer tenants to handle problems with their apartment. Under the Revised Code, there’s a timeline that tenants must follow to force a landlord to make repairs. Under the warranty, a tenant could potentially sue their landlord and immediately move out—but the issue has to be one that’s very severe.

Washington law includes a specific list of requirements for a rental unit

Washington statutory law (that is, the law written down and passed by the state legislature) lays out a detailed list of requirements for rental units, which landlords must abide by.¹ The list is a long one, but includes:

• Keeping roofs, walls, and ceilings in good condition
• Keeping shared and common areas clean and sanitary
• Having a working system to keep rodents and pests out
• Keeping all electric, plumbing, and heating maintained in good working condition
• Ensuring the locks work
• Keeping the residence in compliance with all other applicable housing codes

In general, the law requires landlords to keep rental units “fit for human habitation.” But this is not—not—the “implied warranty of habitability.”

Court decisions established the warranty of habitability

States recognize another source of law besides those written down as statutes—the “common law.” This includes long-standing legal norms and traditions that have been recognized by courts for centuries, even if a state hasn’t decided to include them in its statutes. Washington State courts have recognized the warranty of habitability as a common law concept that protects tenants, in addition to the protections explicitly stated in the Revised Code.²

What’s the difference, and why does it matter? While the statutes and the common law protect tenants from the same general housing issues, the remedies a tenant can seek if their landlord has violated the rules are different.

Tenants have to follow a specific procedure for repairs under the statutes

If a rental unit has a problem that’s mentioned in the Revised Code, a tenant can sue the landlord under statutory law. The tenant must start by notifying their landlord of the issue with their rental in writing. The landlord then has up to 10 days to fix the problem (although the timeline can be shorter, depending on the issue).³ After the alloted period of time is up, the tenant is allowed to make the repair themselves and deduct the cost from their rent.

If the issue is so severe that it’s not feasible for the landlord to fix it within 10 days, the tenant may ask a court to terminate the tenancy.⁴ Notably, the law envisions a tenant remaining in their residence and continuing to pay rent until a court declares that they no longer have to.

Tenants can seek more immediate relief under the warranty of habitability

A tenant in Washington State is not limited to suing under the statutory law. They may also sue under the warranty of habitability. Why would they do this? Because the courts have held that, when a landlord has breached the warranty of habitability, a tenant may vacate a premises immediately and stop paying rent, without giving the landlord the opportunity to fix the problem. A court may later terminate the rental agreement without the tenant owing any unpaid rent.² However, this sort of legal remedy is only available in certain situations, outlined below.

Only the most severe problems are a breach of the warranty

In order to sue under the warranty of habitability—and therefore have the right to vacate immediately—the problem with the rental must “present a substantial risk of future danger.”⁵ Examples in the law include:

• Rotting wood in an overhanging deck that threatens to collapse⁵
• Severe rodent infestations²

• Building code violations threatening the integrity of floors and ceilings⁶

  The phrase courts use again and again is that the issues must be more than “trivial or aesthetic concerns” in order to qualify as a breach of the warranty—the safety of the tenant must be threatened.

Related articles

[1] RCW 59.18.260

[2] Landis Landis Construction LLC v. Nation, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, October 2012

[3] RCW 59.18.070

[4] RCW 59.18.120

[5] Westlake View Condo. Ass'n v. Sixth Ave. View Partners, LLC, 193 P.3d 161 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008)

[6] Atherton Condo Apartment Owners Board of Directors v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (Wash. 1990)