Opinion
No. 1843-3.
February 24, 1977.
[1] States — Interest — Claim or Judgment Against State. The State is not liable for interest on a claim or judgment against it unless such liability is expressly, or by reasonable construction, provided by contract or statute.
Nature of Action: Arbitration proceeding arising from a construction contract with the State. An earlier appellate decision ( 13 Wn. App. 142) had confirmed the award and directed entry of a judgment on it.
Superior Court: At the entry of the judgment on December 31, 1975, by the Superior Court for Kittitas County, No. 18902, W.R. Cole, J., the court held that the State was not liable for interest and refused to award interest on the judgment. Court of Appeals: The trial court is affirmed, the court holding that the State's liability for interest on judgments must be expressly, or by a reasonable construction, found within either a contract or statute, and that the general judgment-interest statute is insufficient to impose such liability upon the State.
Ray L. Greenwood, for appellant.
Slade Gorton, Attorney General, and Owen F. Clarke, Jr., Assistant, for respondent.
This appeal presents one question:
Is the State of Washington liable for interest on a judgment founded on a written contract under the provisions of RCW 4.56.110?
We answer in the negative and affirm.
On October 15, 1973, plaintiff was granted an award in an arbitration proceeding arising from a construction contract with the State of Washington. On November 16, 1973, plaintiff petitioned the Superior Court to confirm the award, which was denied. On appeal, we reversed the denial and directed the judgment be entered on the arbitration award. Moen v. State, 13 Wn. App. 142, 533 P.2d 862 (1975). On October 20, 1975, the parties were before the trial court for entry of judgment at which time plaintiff requested interest on the judgment at 8 percent per annum from November 16, 1973, to October 20, 1975. The trial court determined that the State of Washington was not liable for interest in this case and denied the request. Plaintiff appeals.
RCW 4.56.110 provides in pertinent part:
Interest on judgments shall accrue as follows:
. . .
(2) . . . judgments shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent per annum from the date of entry thereof: . . .
Plaintiff argues that this statute subjects the State to liability for interest on judgments founded on written contracts due to the broad language of the statute and its failure to expressly exclude the State from its provisions. We disagree.
[1] The State cannot be sued without its consent, and then only in a manner and to the extent provided by statute. Pape v. Armstrong, 47 Wn.2d 480, 287 P.2d 1018 (1955); Spier v. Department of Labor Indus., 176 Wn. 374, 29 P.2d 679 (1934). It is well settled that the State
is not liable for interest in any case except where expressly, or by a reasonable construction of a contract or statute, it has placed itself in a position of liability.
Bond v. State, 70 Wn.2d 746, 748, 425 P.2d 10 (1967); Fosbre v. State, 76 Wn.2d 255, 456 P.2d 335 (1969); Pape v. Armstrong, supra. Here, the statute does not expressly impose liability for interest upon the State, nor does a reasonable construction impose such liability. See Renton v. Scott Pac. Terminal, Inc., 9 Wn. App. 364, 377, 512 P.2d 1137 (1973). If interest is to be allowed on judgments against the State arising from written contracts, it must be accomplished by legislative action as in other cases. See RCW 4.56.115 and RCW 8.28.040. There is no error.
Affirmed.