Opinion ID: 2632536
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: ¶ 16 We conclude that the doctrine of completion and acceptance is outmoded, incorrect, and harmful and join the modern majority of states that have abandoned it in favor of the Restatement approach. We reverse the superior court order granting summary judgment and remand for further proceedings in keeping with this holding. WE CONCUR: CHARLES W. JOHNSON, SUSAN OWENS, BARBARA A. MADSEN, MARY E. FAIRHURST, RICHARD B. SANDERS, JJ. J.M. JOHNSON, J. (dissenting). ¶ 17 Today the majority of this court recognizes a new rule for construction contracts that disregards our precedent. The court overturns this state's completion and acceptance rule for construction contracts and imposes a tort-based (and vague) foreseeability rule. The majority thereby rewrites terms of construction contracts created through private parties' negotiation and agreement. ¶ 18 The completion and acceptance rule is well supported in Washington common law, and our legislature has long declined to overturn that rule. I would affirm the trial court's summary judgment order and uphold the rule, continuing to allow free contracting by parties in this state. I dissent.