Washington doesn't run its clock the way most states do, and it stacks on a fault rule that can wipe out a claim even when you file on time. Here's what actually controls a car accident case filed in the District, with the code sections behind each number.
The three-year deadline for injury claims
D.C. Code section 12-301 sets a three-year limit for most civil actions, and ordinary car-accident negligence claims fall under the residual catch-all in subsection (8): three years "for which a limitation is not otherwise specially prescribed."1 There is no separate personal-injury provision the way some states write one; District courts apply the general three-year period to negligence claims arising from a crash. The clock starts on the date of the crash, not the date you finish treatment or the date an insurer denies your claim.
Vehicle damage gets the same three years
If a crash only damaged your car, and you are not pursuing a bodily injury claim, D.C. Code section 12-301(3) covers "injury to real or personal property" with its own three-year period.1 In practice the deadline to sue over vehicle damage lines up with the deadline to sue over injuries, so a single crash typically carries one three-year window for both types of loss. If you are chasing lost resale value rather than repair costs, that is a related but separate claim; see our diminished value guide for the District for how that is calculated.
Minors get the clock paused
D.C. Code section 12-302 tolls the limitations period for anyone under 18 at the time of the crash: the child, or a parent or guardian on their behalf, can sue within the standard period measured from the date the disability is removed, so the three-year clock effectively does not start running until the child turns 18.2 A parent is not required to sue immediately on a child's behalf, though most attorneys recommend acting well before that deadline so evidence and witness memory do not degrade.
Suing the District government: a six-month trap
If the vehicle that hit you was a DC government car, a Metro bus, or any other District-owned vehicle, the three-year statute does not protect you by itself. D.C. Code section 12-309 requires written notice to the Mayor of the District of Columbia within six months of the injury, describing the approximate time, place, cause, and circumstances.3 Miss that six-month notice and the claim is barred no matter how much of the three-year window remains. The statute allows one shortcut: a Metropolitan Police Department report filed in the regular course of duty can itself count as sufficient notice, but do not rely on that without confirming MPD actually generated one covering the required details.3
Fault can bar you even inside the deadline
The District's negligence rule is harsher than the deadline. DC still follows pure contributory negligence for driver-versus-driver crashes: if you are found even 1 percent at fault, you recover nothing, a rule the DC Court of Appeals reaffirmed in Wingfield v. Peoples Drug Store, Inc.4 There is one major carve-out. Under D.C. Code section 50-2204.52, pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users keep a comparative-fault standard: they recover as long as their own negligence is not greater than the combined negligence of all defendants, so they can be up to 50 percent at fault and still collect a reduced award.5 That distinction matters most when you are deciding whether a claim is worth pursuing at all, well before the three-year deadline comes into play.
If you elected no-fault coverage, there's a 60-day clock too
DC runs a choice no-fault system. Drivers carry mandatory tort-based liability insurance, but insurers must also offer optional Personal Injury Protection, and a driver can elect it in writing.6 If you elected PIP, D.C. Code section 31-2405 gives you 60 days after the crash to make that election in writing, extendable by mutual written agreement, and once you are on PIP, D.C. Code section 31-2404 sets minimum benefits at $50,000 for medical and rehabilitation costs, $12,000 for work loss, and $4,000 for funeral expenses.7 Electing PIP also caps your right to sue the at-fault driver unless the injury involves substantial permanent scarring, a permanent impairment affecting daily activities, more than 180 continuous days of disability, or medical bills and lost wages that exceed your PIP benefits.8 None of this shortens the three-year statute, but it changes what kind of claim you can bring within it.
Insurance minimums you're litigating against
Current law requires drivers to carry at least $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident in third-party bodily-injury liability, plus $10,000 in property-damage liability, numbers that have not moved since 1986.9 Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is mandatory at matching levels: $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident for UM bodily injury, plus $5,000 for UM property damage, subject to a $200 deductible.9 The Council passed the Motor Vehicle Insurance Modernization Act of 2025 (B26-0057), which would raise the bodily-injury minimums to $50,000/$100,000, and transmitted it to the Mayor on June 16, 2026, with a response due July 1, 2026.10 As of this writing it has not taken effect, so the 1986-era minimums still apply to any policy you are evaluating today.
Other rules that shape a claim within the window
Two more District quirks show up often in crash claims. DC's handheld phone ban prohibits holding or using a phone without a hands-free accessory, with no carve-out for texting; a first-offense fine of $100 can be suspended if the driver shows proof of buying a hands-free accessory, but that suspension explicitly does not apply to texting violations.11 A citation or an officer's notes on phone use can feed directly into the contributory-negligence analysis above. And if alcohol was involved, DC recognizes dram shop liability: a bar or restaurant that serves an intoxicated or underage patron who then causes a crash can face negligence-per-se liability under the sale-to-intoxicated-persons statute, a theory the Court of Appeals upheld in Jarrett v. Woodward Bros., Inc.12
What to do with the time you have
Request your official crash report early. Our DC crash report guide covers how to get the PD-10 from MPD's Public Documents Section, and having it in hand makes every deadline above easier to manage. If a government vehicle was involved, treat the six-month notice period as the real deadline, not the three-year statute. Because the contributory-negligence rule can end a case regardless of timing, most people are better off getting a fast read from an attorney rather than waiting. Our legal directory can help you find one licensed in the District.
This is general information, not legal advice.
Sources
-
D.C. Code section 12-301, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/12-301
-
D.C. Code section 12-302, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/12-302
-
D.C. Code section 12-309 (notice to Mayor), https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/12-309
-
Wingfield v. Peoples Drug Store, Inc., 379 A.2d 685 (D.C. 1977), https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1977/11243-3.html
-
D.C. Code section 50-2204.52, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/50-2204.52
-
D.C. Code section 31-2406, Compulsory/No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/31-2406
-
D.C. Code section 31-2404 (PIP benefits), https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/31-2404
-
D.C. Code section 31-2405 (PIP election deadline and threshold), https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/31-2405
-
DC DMV, Vehicle Insurance requirements, https://dmv.dc.gov/service/vehicle-insurance
-
LegiScan, DC B26-0057, Motor Vehicle Insurance Modernization Act of 2025, https://legiscan.com/DC/bill/B26-0057/2025
-
D.C. Code section 50-1731.04 (handheld ban); section 50-1731.06 (penalties), https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/50-1731.04
-
Jarrett v. Woodward Bros., Inc., 751 A.2d 972 (D.C. 2000); D.C. Code section 25-781, https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/2000/96-cv-1715-6.html