Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Statutory Interpretation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears whether COVID‑19 qualifies as a "natural disaster" for Washington property‑tax relief
Summary
An appellate panel heard competing arguments over whether the COVID‑19 pandemic falls within RCW 84.70.010's "natural disaster" provision for property‑tax relief: appellants' counsel said dictionary meaning and statutory structure support inclusion; the King County Assessor's counsel urged a narrower, weather‑related reading.
An appellate court heard argument on whether the COVID‑19 pandemic qualifies as a "natural disaster" under Washington law that can trigger property‑tax relief.
Ariel Cook, attorney for the Washington Hospitality Association and a class of King County hotel taxpayers, told the court the assessor's interpretation improperly narrows the statute by requiring physical damage to property. "The COVID 19 pandemic fits the dictionary definition of natural," Cook argued, saying dictionary meanings and precedent show the term "natural disaster" is not limited to events that cause direct physical destruction to buildings or land.
Cook urged the court to read RCW 84.70.010 as establishing two disjunctive pathways to relief: one for property that is destroyed in whole or in part, and another for property that has been located in a declared disaster area and "has been reduced in value by more than 20% as a result of a natural" event. She said the statute's text and context show the legislature intended relief where values fall sharply even if structures remain intact, citing post‑disaster economic harms such as those after the Mount St. Helens eruption.
Julie Cook, counsel for the King County Assessor, countered that the statute and related dictionary guidance point toward traditional, weather‑related disasters. "When we're talking about a natural disaster, we're talking about, earthquakes, weather related phenomenon," she said, and emphasized that the pandemic's spread involved human behavior in a way that distinguishes it from those examples.
Julie Cook asked the court to affirm the Superior Court's Dec. 18, 2024 order granting the Assessor's motion for summary judgment under RCW 84.70.010. She argued the statute's examples and RCW Title 84's broader property‑tax framework indicate the provision targets events that physically damage property or produce long‑lasting local economic destruction.
Both sides cited dictionary definitions and out‑of‑state decisions in their briefs; appellants referenced decisions treating COVID‑19 as a disaster in other contexts and urged the panel not to construe illustrative examples as exhaustive. Counsel for the appellants told the panel the discrete question on appeal is whether the pandemic is "natural" for purposes of the statute; counsel for the assessor urged a more limited reading tied to physical phenomena.
The court recessed briefly during argument. At the conclusion the clerk announced all matters were submitted and the calendar concluded. No decision was announced from the bench.
The case will be resolved on the appellate panel's forthcoming opinion, which will say whether the statutory provision that can trigger property‑tax relief for a "natural disaster" includes pandemics like COVID‑19 under Washington law.
