Panorama Village Homeowners Association v. Golden Rule Roofing, Inc. case brief

Panorama Village Homeowners Ass’n v. Golden Rule Roofing, Inc. case brief summary  10 P.3d 417 (2000)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Appellant roofing company sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of King County (Washington), which awarded respondent homeowners association a portion of the cost of replacing roofs installed by appellant, in respondent’s suit alleging breach of a construction contract.

CASE FACTS

Respondent homeowners association sued appellant roofing company, claiming that appellant breached its contract to install roofs on four of its buildings and to provide respondent with 10-year manufacturers’ warranties. Respondent submitted unchallenged evidence indicating that it would be less expensive to replace the roofs than to attempt a labor-intensive repair, and that repair would not completely cure the defects or provide respondent with valid manufacturer warranties.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The trial court ruled that the roofs were defective, that the roofing materials were not installed in accordance with the contract and manufacturers’ specifications, and that appellant did not provide respondent with valid manufacturers’ warranties. The trial court entered judgment for respondent and awarded it a portion of the cost of replacing the roofs.

DISCUSSION

• On appeal, appellant contended that the trial court erred in finding that it had breached its contracts with respondent and in awarding damages.
• The court concluded that the record supported the trial court’s rulings, and affirmed, finding that the award of damages was not clearly disproportionate to respondent’s loss.

CONCLUSION

The court affirmed judgment for respondent on its breach of contract claim against appellant, and affirmed the award of damages established as a portion of the cost of replacing the roofs installed by appellant.