Banzeruk v. Estate of Howitz
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtBecker, J.
¶1 For the purpose of tolling any statute of limitations, the filing of the complaint tentatively commences the action, and the plaintiff has an additional 90 days after filing within which to serve the defendant. This statutory rule unambiguously applies to the filing of a complaint, not an amended complaint. Because appellant Olga Banzeruk’s filing of an amended complaint did not extend the time allowed for service, and service upon the defendant did not occur until more than three years after Banzeruk’s personal injury action accrued, her action was not timely commenced and the trial court…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Wilson v. SteinbachWashington Supreme Court · 1982
- Kramer v. J.I. Case Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1991
- Parkland Light & Water Co. v. Tacoma-Pierce County Board of HealthWashington Supreme Court · 2004
- Parkland Light & Water Co. v. Tacoma-Pierce County Board of HealthWashington Supreme Court · 2004
- LaRue v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Banzeruk v. Estate of Howitz Ex Rel. MoodyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
- Smith v. MORAN, WINDES & WONG, PLLCCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
- Smith v. Moran, Windes & Wong, PLLCCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
- Ivonne Campbell v. Ana FernandezCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2020
- Daryl Pecelj Et Ano, V. Derek SparksCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2024
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.