Legal Opinion

Markborough California, Inc. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 11, 1991No. E008238PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

HOLLENHORST, Acting P. J.

In this case we hold that a provision in a construction contract limiting a party’s liability to the developer of the property for damages caused by the engineer’s professional errors and omissions is valid under Civil Code section 2782.5 1 if the parties had an opportunity to accept, reject or modify the provision.

Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as Markborough) filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to vacate respondent court’s order granting summary adjudication of issues in favor of real party in interest (hereinafter referred to as Glenn). We…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Tunkl v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  2. People v. BeltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Windsor Mills, Inc. v. Collins & Aikman Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1972
  4. Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. County of RiversideCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Douglas Aircraft Co.California Court of Appeal · 1965

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Marin Storage & Trucking, Inc. v. Benco Contracting & Engineering, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2001
  2. Food Safety Net Services v. Eco Safe Systems USA, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012
  3. City of Dillingham v. CH2M Hill Northwest, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Michael Terpin v. at and T Mobility LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024
  5. Lewis v. Youtube, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API