(concurring)—I concur in the result reached by the majority and agree that the 1-year time limit for suits on an insurance policy is a valid and enforceable provision and that the 1-year time limitation expired when North-West's original declaratory judgment action was dismissed. However, I disagree with the majority when it holds that a declaratory judgment action commenced by the insurance company within the specified time period to determine its obligations under the policy does not satisfy the time limitation for suits on the policy. Such a holding is not necessary to the opinion and is mere dicta. The case of Farmers Ins. Group v. Johnson, 43 Wn. App. 39, 715 P.2d 144 (1986) is scant authority for such a holding. In Johnson the issue of the applicability of the 1-year time limitation was not properly presented by the appellant and there the issue should have been resolved on that basis. Furthermore, the Johnson holding that a declaratory judgment action does not qualify as an action for recovery of an insurance claim is devoid of any authority or supporting reasons.
The Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act of this state provides, so far as is material here, the following:
Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. An action or proceeding shall not be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect; and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.
RCW 7.24.010.
*102A person interested under a . . . written contract . . . or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a . . . contract. . . may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the . . . contract. . . and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.
RCW 7.24.020.
When declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration, and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceeding.
RCW 7.24.110, in part.
This chapter is declared to be remedial; its purpose is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal relations; and is to be liberally construed and administered.
RCW 7.24.120.
Because a declaratory judgment has the force and effect of a final judgment it is res judicata of the matters at issue as between the parties and their privies. 22 Am. Jur. 2d Declaratory Judgments § 102. Any person whose rights could be affected by the declaratory judgment are necessary parties and must be joined in the action. Glandon v. Searle, 68 Wn.2d 199, 412 P.2d 116 (1966).
If in the case before us a judgment had been entered on North-West's complaint for declaratory relief, it would act as a bar to any suit by Logan for recovery under the policy even though it was initiated within the required time limitation.
If, as the majority contends, a declaratory judgment action does not qualify as an action for recovery under the policy, the application of the well settled rules of res judi-cata to a judgment for declaratory relief would effectively deny the insured his right to sue for recovery even though the insured's suit was initiated in a timely fashion and even though the declaratory judgment favored the insured. Such cannot be the case.
If the issue was necessary to a resolution of this case, *103which it is not, I would hold that North-West's declaratory judgment action, initiated well within the specified time limit, in which it sought to determine its obligation to pay under its policy satisfied the policy's requirements of a suit for recovery under the policy. Nevertheless, since, in the case before us, the declaratory judgment action was dismissed before judgment was entered and the time limitation period is calculated as if the declaratory judgment had not been filed, the time period within which suit must be initiated had expired long before this suit was started and dismissal was proper.