Legal Opinion
Fortune View Condominium Ass'n v. Fortune Star Development Co.
Washington Supreme Court
Decided May 27, 2004No. 73543-3Published
1DissentMadsen, J.
(dissenting) — The majority opinion is troubling for several reasons. First and most significantly, the majority opinion is based on a misunderstanding of indemnity law. As a result, the majority finds a cause of action for indemnity under Central Washington Refrigeration, Inc. v. Barbee, 133 Wn.2d 509, 946 P.2d 760 (1997) that is not justified by that decision nor by respondent Urban Development, Inc.’s arguments. The type of implied indemnity claim recognized in Barbee expressly requires a contractual relationship between the parties. The contractual requirement discussed in Barbee is in…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Central Washington Bank v. Mendelson-Zeller, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1989
- Washington Water Power Co. v. Graybar Electric Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1989
- Arthur Araujo v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket Steamship Authority v. New England Telephone Co., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982
- Baughn v. Honda Motor Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1986
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.