Equitable estoppel applies to state agencies. Bond v. Dep’t Social & Health Services, 111 Wn. App. 566, 575, 45 P.3d 1087 (2002), citing with approval Kramarevcky v. Dep’t of Social & Health Services, 122 wn.2d 738, 863 P.2d 535 (1993). A claim of equitable estoppel against a government agency requires evidence of (1) an admission, statement or act by the government inconsistent with its later claim; (2) a party acting in reliance on the admission, statement or act; (3) injury to the relying party if the government were allowed to contract or repudiate its prior admission, statement, or act; (4) the necessity of estoppel to prevent a manifest injustice; and (5) no impairment of governmental functions if estoppel is applied. Kramarevcky, 122 Wn.2d at 743-744. A party claiming estoppel must also show reasonable reliance. Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34, 82, 830 P.2d 318 (1992). In Bond, a rule was updated requiring respondent to come into compliance with the new safety regulations. The respondent argued that, as the DSHS knew of the infrastructure at her adult family home, it was estopped from sanctioning her for violations of the new code. That court held that the respondent failed to establish estoppel because the DSHS was entitled to update its safety regulations. Further, that court held that governmental functions would be impaired in an instance where the Department were estopped from enforcing fire safety regulations.
