damages." Nevertheless, after analyzing the language in context, we held that the CPA
does not allow recovery for emotional distress. Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. &
Ass'n v. Fisons Corp, 122 Wn.2d 299,318, 858 P.2d 1054 (1993). We examined the
purpose of the statute at issue, reasoning that the CPA concerns injuries to "'business or
property,"' not personal injuries. Id. Therefore, "actual damages" did not include
emotional distress. Id.
Similarly, as the Supreme Court recently observed, "actual damages" has a
"chameleon-like quality" because "the precise meaning of the term 'changes with the
specific statute in which it is found."' Fed. Aviation Admin. v. Cooper, _U.S._, 132
S. Ct. 1441, 1450, 1449, 182 L. Ed. 2d 497 (2012) (quoting Cooper v. Fed. Aviation
9
No. 90088-4
Admin., 622 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding "actual damages" does not include
emotional distress damages as used in the Privacy Act of 1974, codified in part at 5
U.S.C. § 552a)). As the Court noted, sometimes the term includes emotional distress
damages, while in other contexts it includes only pecuniary harm. !d. at 1449.
As discussed, in this case, the statute provides for the recovery of financial losses
caused by displacement; it simply does not address or reasonably encompass emotional
distress damages.
CONCLUSION
We hold that RCW 59.18.085 of the RLTA provides relocation assistance to
tenants. Recovery for emotional distress damages is not available under this statute. We
affirm.
10
No. 90088-4