The damages are limited to those identified in the statute RCW 59.18.[0]85(3)." CP at
12.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of emotional distress damages in a
published, split decision. Segura v. Cabrera, 179 Wn. App. 630, 319 P .3d 98, review
granted, 181 Wn.2d 1006, 332 P.3d 985 (2014). Relying on this court's opinion in White
River Estates, the majority in the Court of Appeals held that emotional distress damages
were not recoverable because a landlord could violate RCW 59.18.085(3)(a) '"by
conduct not amounting to an intentional tort."' !d. at 63 7 (quoting White River Estates v.
Hiltbruner, 134 Wn.2d 761, 769, 953 P.2d 796 (1998)). The Court of Appeals also
2
Segura described these damages as "representing additional damages for the anxiety, worry,
inconvenience, and upheaval inflicted upon the plaintiffs and their children from being forced to
vacate their home on a few days' notice shortly after signing a year's lease [and] the harassment
and illegal lock-out suffered at the defendants' hands, including missing property." CP at 64.
3
No. 90088-4
reasoned that the language ofRCW 59.18.085(3)(e) "implies out of pocket or financial
damages incurred by relocation .... This interpretation better suits the statute's purpose,
which suggests the 'actual damages' provided in RCW 59.18.085(3)(e) are limited to
reasonable moving expenses." Id.
This court granted Segura's petition for review.
ANALYSIS
Statutory interpretation resolves whether the RL TA allows displaced tenants to
recover emotional distress damages. See White River Estates, 134 Wn.2d at 765. The
purpose of statutory interpretation is to determine the legislature's intent and to apply it.