Defect Claim under UCC Allowed to Proceed
On a school renovation project, the general contractor hired a subcontractor to apply stain to a newly installed concrete floor which had been sealed with a silicone product specified by the architect. The stain failed to adhere -- washing off after an accidental water spill.
After settling with the owner and subcontractor, the general contractor brought product liability claims against t he manufacturer and seller of the stain.
Division 1 first held that the claim under the WPLA (Washington Product Liability Act) was no good because the general contractor suffered only economic loss (failure of the stain itself) which is not covered by the WPLA rather than loss to something else such as the underlying concrete floor or the health & safety of students.
The Court of Appeals gave the green light, however, to the general contractor's UCC warranty claims. While the defendants claimed the failure was due to improper application or the wrong sealant, the Court held that a trier of fact might well find the stain itself failed to comply with the implied or express warranties under the UCC.
Had the stain also been specified by the architect, is it likely that the Court of Appeals would still have given the green light for UCC warranty claims?