Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811 (2001)

Citation: Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811 (2001)
Parent Document: Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811 (2001)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2001-06-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4931615/lian-v-stalick/ ↗

Full Text

1,019 chars

While Ms. White aptly notes Klos and Stuart address solely the implied warranty of habitability in the builder/ vendor to purchaser context, Mr. Stalick asserts correctly that Stuart has been cited with approval in cases involving the warranty of habitability under the RLTA. See Howard v. Horn, 61 Wn. App. 520, 525, 810 P.2d 1387 (1991); see also Wright v. Miller, 93 Wn. App. 189, 200-01, 963 P.2d 934 (1998), review denied, 138 Wn.2d 1017 (1999) (citing both Stuart and Howard with approval). But, in Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass’n Board of Directors v. Blume Development Co., 115 Wn.2d 506, 519-22, 799 P.2d 250 (1990), the Supreme Court declined to apply Stuart as a general rule, reasoning it would interpret the applicability of the implied warranty of habitability on a “case-by-case basis.” Id. at 520. Further, the policy grounds underlying the implied warranty of liability brought certain Uniform Building Code (UBC) code violations within the purview of the rule. Id. at 521-22. Specifically:

Other Sections in This Document (99)

Full Text