Opinion ID: 524344
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether 213A or 213B Warranties Govern Saved Claims

Text: 34 The court ruled Mod. 164 ambiguous as to whether the warranty provisions of Contract 213A or 213B govern the reserved claims. 7 We find the court's reasoning persuasive and conclude that the language in Mod. 164 is ambiguous as to this issue. 35 As stated before, the parties in Mod. 164 settled claims arising from the performance of Contract 213A up to and including February 28, 1981 excluding: 36 any issues between Owner and Contractor related to defective or nonconforming work accomplished prior to February 28, 1981 and [sic] that may arise from contractors failure to properly implement the Quality Assurance Program as set forth in the 2808-213A by reference herein as applicable to this issue. 37 Mod. 164, p 2 (emphasis added). 38 WPPSS argues that this portion of p 2 expresses unambiguously that the parties intended Contract 213A provisions to govern all reserved claims. It interprets the reference to 213A as defining what agreement would govern all saved claims. Emphasizing that Contract 213A governed work accomplished before February 28, 1981, it contends that the same contract should govern all claims related to that work. 39 On the other hand, PDM contends that Mod. 164 superseded and replaced the warranty provisions in Contract 213A with those of Contract 213B regardless of whether the work was performed under Contract 213A or 213B. Contract 213A provisions were otherwise extinguished by p 8 of Mod. 164, which states in pertinent part: 40 Delete the following specification pages and insert attached revised or added pages as follows: 41 Delete: 1A Section [contains 213A warranty provisions] in its entirety 42 Insert: 1A Section [contains 213B warranty provisions] in its entirety, FBS, 3/1/81. 43 It argues that the parties in Mod. 164 intended Contract 213B provisions to govern any claims, or alternatively, that the language in Mod. 164 is ambiguous. 44 The court found the above portion of p 2 ambiguous. It explained: 45 That portion of p 2 which states as set forth in the 2808-213A by reference herein as applicable to this issue falls squarely within Washington's broad definition of ambiguity. While it is manifest that 213B, at a minimum, applies to work accomplished after March 1, 1981 which was not done to correct defective work done before March 1st, the ambiguous reference in the same paragraph (2 of Mod. 164) to 213A read with or without the other provisions in 213A and 213B leave the construing reader with a choice of whether the parties intended to define performance and breach remedies of the saved 213A claims by reference to the otherwise extinguished provisions (213A) of the modified contract or by reference to the substituted 213B provisions. This is so since the phrase could be read as simply using 213A to define Quality Assurance Program. 46 Summary Judgment Order at 38. 47 We agree with the court that the reference to 213A might define the quality assurance program requirements only, but that it might address available remedies as well. We find the language ambiguous. Reviewing the extrinsic evidence offered to assist with the interpretation of this ambiguity, we agree with the court's conclusion that neither party presented evidence that demonstrated unequivocally that either the warranties of Contract 213A or those of Contract 213B govern the saved claims. The court properly denied summary judgment. 48