Washington Sets Sixty Out-of-Service Days for Motor Homes and Thirty for Other Vehicles

Washington puts two out-of-service thresholds in the same lemon law chapter. A new car, pickup, or qualifying motorcycle reaches the statutory trigger after thirty cumulative calendar days in the shop. A motor home reaches it after sixty. The day count is not the only thing separating them. The motor home tracks in RCW 19.118.041(3) route the last repair through a written notice to every manufacturer involved and through a facility those manufacturers designate. The tracks covering every other vehicle, in RCW 19.118.041(2), require no notice at all.

Counted in repair visits the two sides come out even. Counted in calendar days and in paperwork they do not. What follows is what each subsection says and where each number comes from.

The chapter deems rather than presumes

California's lemon law runs on a presumption the manufacturer may rebut. Washington uses a different verb. RCW 19.118.041(2) opens with “Reasonable number of attempts, except in the case of a new motor vehicle that is a motor home, shall be deemed to have been undertaken by the manufacturer, its agent, or the new motor vehicle dealer to conform the new motor vehicle to the warranty within the eligibility period, if:” Subsection (3) opens the same way for motor homes: “In the case of a new motor vehicle that is a motor home, a reasonable number of attempts shall be deemed to have been undertaken by the motor home manufacturers, their respective agents, or their respective new motor vehicle dealers to conform the new motor vehicle to the warranty within the eligibility period, if:” Four conditions follow in each: (a) through (d) in subsection (2), and (i) through (iv) under (3)(a).

What that verb settles is narrow: the repair-attempt element and nothing beyond it. The manufacturer keeps the defenses written into RCW 19.118.090(5): “It is an affirmative defense to any claim under this chapter that: (a) The alleged nonconformity does not substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the new motor vehicle; or (b) the alleged nonconformity is the result of abuse, neglect, or unauthorized modifications or alterations of the new motor vehicle.” Reaching a track in RCW 19.118.041 moves the argument onto that ground rather than ending it.

Four tracks on each side of the section

Four deemed-attempt tracks on each side of RCW 19.118.041Left column lists subsections 2a through 2d for a new motor vehicle that is not a motor home. Right column lists subsections 3a i through 3a iv for a motor home. The visit totals match, though subsection 2 counts a visit subject to diagnosis or repair while subsection 3a ii counts one subject to repair. The motor home rows add a final repair attempt under subsection 3b and double the out of service day count from thirty to sixty. Two sets of tracks inside one section RCW 19.118.041. Each track deems attempts undertaken to conform the vehicle within the eligibility period. New motor vehicle that is not a motor home Motor home Same serious safety defect 2 diagnosis or repair visits — (2)(a) Same serious safety defect 1 visit plus the final attempt in (3)(b) — (3)(a)(i) Same nonconformity 4 diagnosis or repair visits — (2)(b) Same nonconformity 3 repair visits plus the final attempt — (3)(a)(ii) Out of service 30 cumulative days, 15 inside the warranty — (2)(c) Out of service 60 cumulative days, no warranty minimum — (3)(a)(iii) Two different serious safety defects 1 visit each in a 12-month period — (2)(d) Two different serious safety defects 1 visit each, same manufacturer warranty — (3)(a)(iv) Source: RCW 19.118.041, Washington State Legislature. Read with the definitions in RCW 19.118.021.

Each column holds four independent routes, and meeting one is enough. The definition doing the most work sits at RCW 19.118.021(19), which defines a serious safety defect as “A life-threatening malfunction or nonconformity that impedes the consumer's ability to control or operate the new motor vehicle for ordinary use or reasonable intended purposes or creates a risk of fire or explosion.” Steering, braking, and fire risk fall inside that sentence. A rattling trim panel falls outside it.

The repair visits match. The step between them does not.

Line the columns up and the counts come out even. Under RCW 19.118.041(2)(b), an ordinary vehicle qualifies when “the same nonconformity has been subject to diagnosis or repair four or more times, at least one of which is during the period of coverage of the applicable manufacturer's written warranty, and the nonconformity continues to exist.” Four visits. Under RCW 19.118.041(3)(a)(ii), a motor home qualifies when “the same nonconformity has been subject to repair three or more times, at least one of which is during the period of coverage of the applicable motor home manufacturer's written warranty, plus a final attempt to repair the vehicle as provided for in (b) of this subsection, and the nonconformity continues to exist.” Three visits plus a final attempt. Four events on either side. The totals match; the words being counted do not. (2)(b) counts a visit “subject to diagnosis or repair”, while (3)(a)(ii) counts one “subject to repair”, so a motor home visit that produced a diagnosis and no repair sits outside that count on the face of the subsection.

The safety tracks come to the same total: two visits under (2)(a), one visit plus the final attempt under (3)(a)(i). The warranty placement differs as well. (2)(a) asks for two visits “at least one of which is” inside the coverage period; (3)(a)(i) asks for its single visit to fall “during” that period, with no second visit to carry the requirement. What changes after that is who controls the last attempt. RCW 19.118.041(3)(b) puts the consumer under a notice requirement, gives the manufacturers fifteen days from receipt to answer and name a repair facility, and then provides that “The motor home manufacturers have a cumulative total of thirty days, commencing upon delivery of the vehicle to the designated repair facility by the consumer, to conform the vehicle to the applicable motor home manufacturer's written warranty.”

That ladder can occupy forty-five calendar days after the third repair before the track is complete. RCW 19.118.041(1) then allows the manufacturer forty calendar days from a written request to replace or repurchase. An owner who sends the (3)(b) notice, waits out both windows, and then makes a written demand faces eighty-five calendar days of statutory waiting before that demand falls due.

Thirty days, fifteen of them inside the warranty

The out-of-service tracks are where the columns separate. For an ordinary vehicle, RCW 19.118.041(2)(c) is reached when “the vehicle is out of service by reason of diagnosis or repair of one or more nonconformities for a cumulative total of thirty calendar days, at least fifteen of them during the period of the applicable manufacturer's written warranty.” Half the qualifying days have to land inside the warranty; the other half may fall outside it. Measured against a warranty written at the statutory floor of one year, those fifteen days amount to about 4.1 percent of the first three hundred sixty-five days of ownership.

The motor home version doubles the count and drops the placement rule. RCW 19.118.041(3)(a)(iii) is reached when the vehicle is out of service “for a cumulative total of sixty calendar days aggregating all motor home manufacturer days out of service, and the motor home manufacturers have had at least one opportunity to coordinate and complete an inspection and any repairs of the vehicle's nonconformities after receipt of notification from the consumer as provided for in (c) of this subsection.” No fraction of the sixty days has to fall inside a warranty period, though the opening clause of (3) quoted above already ties the whole track to the eligibility period. What it asks for instead is the notice step in (3)(c).

That step has an unusual shape. Under RCW 19.118.041(3)(c), once thirty or more cumulative days have accrued the consumer notifies the manufacturers, who answer within fifteen days, after which “Once the buyer delivers the vehicle to the designated repair facility, the inspection and repairs must be completed by the motor home manufacturers either (i) within ten days or (ii) before the vehicle is out of service by reason of diagnosis or repair of one or more nonconformities for sixty days, whichever time period is longer.” If the vehicle stays out of service throughout, limb (i) becomes the longer of the two only once delivery to the designated facility happens later than day fifty of the count, since ten days added to any earlier delivery still lands before the sixty-day mark.

Both day counts can stop running. RCW 19.118.031(8) provides that “The eligibility period and thirty-day out-of-service period, and sixty-day out-of-service period in the case of a motor home, shall be extended by any time that repair services are not available to the consumer as a direct result of a strike, war, invasion, fire, flood, or other natural disaster.” Three of the numbers in this article move together when that happens.

The day counts, side by side

Calendar day counts in RCW 19.118Seven horizontal bars on a zero to sixty day scale. Out of service thresholds are thirty days for other vehicles and sixty days for motor homes. Manufacturer deadlines are fifteen plus thirty days for the final repair attempt, fifteen plus ten days for the inspection window, forty days to replace or repurchase on request, sixty days for a board decision and forty days to comply with an accepted decision. The day counts the chapter writes down Calendar days. Vehicle-side thresholds in the upper block, deadlines a party has to meet in the lower block. DAYS THE VEHICLE IS OUT OF SERVICE Other vehicles — 041(2)(c) 30 days Motor home — 041(3)(a)(iii) 60 days DAYS A PARTY HAS TO ACT Notice to final repair attempt — 041(3)(b) 15 + 30 days Notice to inspection window — 041(3)(c) 15 + 10 days Replace or repurchase on request — 041(1) 40 days Board decision after assignment — 090(2) 60 days Comply with accepted decision — 090(9) 40 days 0 15 30 45 60 Source: RCW 19.118.041 and RCW 19.118.090, Washington State Legislature. Darker segment: the 15 days that must fall inside the warranty in (2)(c), or the 15-day response window in (3)(b) and (3)(c). RCW 19.118.031(8) extends both out-of-service periods for strike, war, invasion, fire, flood or other natural disaster.

Two of the seven bars belong to the vehicle. The other five are deadlines resting on a manufacturer or on the arbitration board, under RCW 19.118.041(1), (3)(b) and (3)(c) and RCW 19.118.090(2) and (9). None of the five constrains the consumer.

Three clocks run from the same delivery date

Three clocks running from one delivery dateA month scale from zero to thirty six. The manufacturer written warranty floor runs to month twelve, the eligibility period runs to month twenty four, and the deadline to request arbitration runs to month thirty. The subsection 2 tracks measure against the actual written warranty, and the twelve month bar is only the statutory floor for that warranty. Three clocks, one start date All three run from the date of original delivery to the consumer at retail. They end on three different days. Written warranty floor, 031(3) 12 months or 12,000 miles The (2) tracks measure against the actual written warranty; 031(3) only sets its floor Eligibility period 021(6) 24 months or 24,000 miles Arbitration request 090(3) 30 months 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 months after original delivery 090(3) also requires the attorney general to accept the dispute for arbitration; the 30 months is one of two conditions. For a motor home, 090(3) extends the 30-month period by the time the manufacturers take to complete the final repair attempt at the designated repair facility. That sentence does not name the 15-day response window. Source: RCW 19.118.021(6), RCW 19.118.031(3) and RCW 19.118.090(3), Washington State Legislature.

The first is the manufacturer's written warranty. RCW 19.118.031(3) sets a floor for it: “For purposes of this subsection, the manufacturer's written warranty shall be at least one year after the date of the original delivery to the consumer of the vehicle or the first twelve thousand miles of operation, whichever occurs first.” This is the window the “at least one of which” language in the subsection (2) tracks points back to.

The second is the eligibility period, defined at RCW 19.118.021(6) as “the period ending two years after the date of the original delivery to the consumer of a new motor vehicle, or the first twenty-four thousand miles of operation, whichever occurs first.” Exactly double the statutory warranty floor on both axes.

The third is the filing deadline, which RCW 19.118.090(3) writes as a condition on the manufacturer: “Manufacturers shall submit to arbitration if such arbitration is requested by the consumer within thirty months from the date of the original delivery of the new motor vehicle to a consumer at retail and if the consumer's dispute is accepted for arbitration by the attorney general.” Thirty months is one of two conditions. For a vehicle delivered on 8 September 2026, the eligibility period closes after 731 days and the filing window closes after 912, a difference of 181 days, or about 25 percent more time than the eligibility period allows.

Motor homes get one further sentence in the same subsection: “In the case of a motor home, the thirty-month period will be extended by the amount of time it takes the motor home manufacturers to complete the final repair attempt at the designated repair facility as provided for in RCW 19.118.041(3)(b).” The extension the sentence names is the repair period at the designated facility. It does not name the fifteen-day response window that runs before the vehicle arrives there. On the 912-day count above, a (3)(b) notice sent later than roughly day 827 leaves less room than the eighty-five days the notice ladder and the forty-day repurchase window can together consume.

What the record has to show

Every track in RCW 19.118.041 is counted out of documents, and the chapter says who produces them. RCW 19.118.031(5) puts an itemized repair order on the dealer for each visit, and RCW 19.118.031(4) requires the manufacturer or dealer to hand over inspection reports, diagnostic readings, and technical service bulletins on request.

  1. A repair order for every visit, carrying the reported symptom, the work performed, the dates in and out, and the odometer reading. The visit counts in (2)(a), (2)(b), (3)(a)(i) and (3)(a)(ii) are counts of these.
  2. Dates in and out for each stay, because (2)(c) and (3)(a)(iii) count calendar days rather than visits, and (2)(c) sorts those days by whether they fell inside the warranty.
  3. The warranty term in force, since (2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(d), (3)(a)(i), (3)(a)(ii) and (3)(a)(iv) each need at least one attempt inside it, while (2)(c) instead needs fifteen of its out-of-service days to fall there.
  4. The written notice and its delivery record for a motor home, addressed to each manufacturer at the corporate, zone, or regional office as (3)(b) and (3)(c) direct.
  5. The manufacturers' answer, or its absence, inside the fifteen-day window, plus the date the vehicle reached the designated facility, which starts the thirty-day or ten-day period.
  6. The retail delivery date, which starts the warranty, the eligibility period, and the thirty-month filing window at once.

Where this framework does not apply

The chapter reaches a narrower set of vehicles than the phrase implies. RCW 19.118.021(12) leaves out “vehicles purchased or leased by a business as part of a fleet of ten or more vehicles at one time or under a single purchase or lease agreement”, trucks rated at nineteen thousand pounds gross vehicle weight or more, and the portions of a motor home used as a dwelling, office, or commercial space. A motorcycle counts only if it satisfies RCW 19.118.021(9): “any motorcycle as defined in RCW 46.04.330 which has an engine displacement of at least seven hundred fifty cubic centimeters.” The vehicle also has to have been originally purchased or leased at retail in Washington, though two clauses in the same definition run the other way. The chapter reaches a vehicle bought “by a member of the armed forces regardless of in which state the vehicle was purchased or leased”, on the two conditions the same sentence attaches: that the vehicle otherwise meets the definition, and that the person is stationed or residing in Washington at the time the arbitration request is submitted. And the term takes in a demonstrator or lease-purchase vehicle “as long as a manufacturer's warranty was issued as a condition of sale.”

Three further limits sit outside the vehicle definition. Reaching a track settles the attempt element only, and the affirmative defenses in RCW 19.118.090(5) stay available. The nonconformity itself has to clear RCW 19.118.021(14), which excludes a defect or condition resulting from abuse, neglect, or unauthorized modification. And these thresholds belong to Washington alone: a visit count that qualifies here carries no weight under another state's statute, and the day counts change at the border.

Numbers to Re-check

Threshold numbers move when the legislature amends the chapter, and the warranty term moves by manufacturer and model. Confirm these against the current text.

  • Visit counts, day counts, and the notice ladders: RCW 19.118.041, at app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.118.041
  • Eligibility period, serious safety defect, nonconformity, and the vehicle exclusions: RCW 19.118.021
  • Warranty floor, the record-keeping duties, and the strike-and-disaster extension in (8): RCW 19.118.031
  • Filing deadline, board timing, and affirmative defenses: RCW 19.118.090
  • The written warranty issued with the vehicle, which can run past the one-year floor and changes which attempts count

This article describes the text of Washington statutes and is not legal advice. It evaluates no individual vehicle or claim and creates no professional relationship. Statutes are amended and courts interpret them, so anyone deciding what to do about a specific vehicle should consult a licensed attorney in that state.

Popular posts from this blog

Four Repair Attempts Create a Presumption in California, Not an Automatic Buyback

A California owner whose new vehicle has been in the shop four times for the same defect is often told the car "qualifies as a lemon." The statute says something narrower. Four repair attempts inside a defined window create a rebuttable presumption that a reasonable number of attempts has been made. A presumption is an evidentiary starting position, not an entitlement to a check. Understanding the difference determines what a repair file has to prove, and it explains why two owners with identical repair histories can end up in very different positions. The window comes first, and it is short Civil Code section 1793.22, the Tanner Consumer Protection Act, opens every one of its thresholds with the same clause: the qualifying events must occur within 18 months from delivery to the buyer or 18,000 miles on the odometer, whichever occurs first . Not 18 months and 18,000 miles. Whichever arrives sooner closes the window. A commuter driving 1,600 miles a month reaches 18,000...
Read more

Texas Lemon Law Deadlines Run on 24,000 Miles, Refunds on One Repair Order Date

Two vehicles can carry identical repair histories and land in different places under Texas law, because Chapter 2301 of the Texas Occupations Code measures its qualifying window from the date of original delivery and closes it on whichever arrives first, the calendar or the odometer. Section 2301.605 supplies the presumption — a rebuttable one, not an entitlement. A rule of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, 43 TAC §224.260, supplies the arithmetic, and its output turns on one date most owners never write down: the first report of the defect. What follows reads both, with section numbers and effective dates attached. Three Presumption Tests, One Shared Cutoff Section 2301.605(a) establishes the presumption “that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken to conform a motor vehicle to an applicable express warranty” if any of three conditions is met. The first, §2301.605(a)(1), is the four-attempt test: “the same nonconformity continu...
Read more

When Florida Counts 30 Days Out of Service, the 15-Day Letter Comes First

Florida’s motor vehicle warranty chapter does not convert a broken car into a refund on the third failed repair. It builds a presumption, and the presumption is what the state’s arbitration board works from. Section 681.104(3) of the Florida Statutes contains two ways to reach it, and they count different things: one counts repair attempts on a single defect, the other counts days the vehicle sat out of service for any number of defects. Each route carries its own written-notice step, sent by registered or express mail and addressed to the manufacturer rather than to the dealership doing the work. As printed in the 2026 Florida Statutes, section 681.104 closes with a history note whose last entry is s. 4, ch. 97-245, so the thresholds in that section have stood since 1997. Two Routes to the Presumption, and They Count Different Things The presumption is stated once and then splits in two. Section 681.104(3) opens: “It is presumed that a reasonable number of attemp...
Read more