Opinion ID: 676063
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Breach of Warranty by RPWD

Text: 30 Iacobelli's second cause of action relied on the same factual predicate as its differing site conditions claim and alleged that Iacobelli sustained injury because RPWD warranted the accuracy of its plans and specifications and the fitness of its plans and specifications for the purposes intended. 31 When the district court granted summary judgment on the differing site conditions claim, it dismissed Iacobelli's action in its entirety, without discussing the breach of warranty claim. RPWD notes that the breach of warranty claim relies on the same essential factual suppositions as the differing site conditions claim and argues that [f]or the same reasons that Iacobelli's argument under the Differing Site Condition clause failed, so too should its breach of warranty claim. 32 We agree with RPWD that Iacobelli's differing site conditions claim and breach of warranty claim are closely linked. Because we are reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment on the differing site conditions claim, we hold that Iacobelli's breach of warranty claim should also be reinstated.