GUEITS V. WHIDBEY GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, (WASH. CT. APP. SEP. 2025)
CLAIMS: Homeowner sued for negligence, nuisance, and breach of contract against Whidbey Golf and Country Club (WGCC), asserting that WGCC’s improper maintenance of a drainage system caused their home to flood.
EVIDENCE: WGCC's property was at the bottom of a large drainage basin area. The Owner’s home was at the lowest part of the WGCC golf course. In 2002, WGCC entered a Drainage Agreement with Island County and Oak Harbor Village regarding stormwater. The agreement recognized that stormwater could overwhelm the WGCC drainage system and cause flooding and nuisances on neighboring properties. WGCC agreed to “assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance” of the system and to “comply with current standards for stormwater quality and best management practices.” In February 2020, during a severe storm, water from the golf course flooded the Owner’s home and remained in the home for over a week. An expert testified that WGCC had let detention ponds in the vicinity silt and sediment over time, which diminished the storage capacity for storm water detention. Thus, he testified that WGCC’s insufficient maintenance caused the Owner’s home to flood.
COURT RULING: First, the Court determined that the Owners were not intended third-party beneficiaries of WGCC's drainage agreement with the County or City. The Court then focused on a body of law referred to as the Common Enemy Doctrine. Under that doctrine, landowners are shielded from liability for the discharge of surface water from their property onto others, unless they: (1) block a natural drainage way; (2) artificially channel water onto neighbors' land in quantities greater than, or differently from, the natural historical flow; or (3) fail to act in good faith and care to avoid unnecessary damage to neighboring properties when altering the flow of surface water. After review, the Owners were unable to provide sufficient evidence that WGCC's alterations caused flooding that wouldn't have occurred naturally. Golf course wins.
MATHEWSON V. ANGLIA HOMES, L.P., (TEX. CT. APP. AUG. 2025)
CLAIMS: Mathewson filed a construction-defect lawsuit after discovering mold in the new house he bought from Anglia Homes. He sued for breach of contract, breach of implied warranties of habitability and good workmanship, negligent construction, and other claims.
EVIDENCE: Mathewson purchased the new home from Anglia Homes on September 28, 2016. Within the contract, Mathewson obligated to extensive mold provisions, such as: “Upon taking possession of the home, you are responsible for implementing an inspection and maintenance program for the identification and elimination of moisture in the home that could give rise to the growth of mold.” Further, the builder specifically disclaimed “any warrenty, express or implied, against any responsibility or liability for mold, mildew or fungus.” Within three years of closing, Mathewson hired a company to test his home for mold. On May 22, 2019, the company issued a report revealing the presence of mold. In July 2019, Mathewson sent Anglia Homes notice of the mold, and then Mathewson sued the builder on September 15, 2020.
COURT RULING: The court focused on two issues, being statute of limitations and implied warranties. It noted that generally, in construction-defect negligence tort cases, the 2-year statute of limitations for bringing a lawsuit begins to run when an owner becomes aware of defect damage, instead of when the home is substantially complete. Applying it here, the Court found that the statute of limitations began to run when Mathewson knew of the mold in 2019, not when he bought the house in 2016, and therefore, he had time to file the lawsuit. As to warranties, despite the extensive specific disclaimers of mold in the contract, the Court considered whether those disclaimers were enough to disclaim much broader implied warranties for good workmanship and habitability. The Court basically ruled that the builder had not been descriptive enough to disclaim away the much broader implied warranties. Therefore, the Court found that the broader warranties still covered mold issues and therefore the mold defects and causation fell within the implied warranty protections. Thus, the home buyer wins, and the Court orders the case back to trial to determine if the builder had disclaimed the broader implied warranties.
CAMPANALE V. TOWNE PLAZA MASTIC REALTY, LLC, (SUP. CT. N.Y. OCT. 2025)
CLAIMS: Plaintiff sued a commercial shopping center owner and a hair salon owner within the shopping center for personal injuries from a slip and fall on ice outside of the salon within the center. The case focused on whether the salon owner must indemnify the shopping center for the claims.
EVIDENCE: The Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice on a sidewalk in the shopping center owned by Towne Plaza in December 2020. The sidewalk abutted the premises leased by a salon named Headcutters at the time as tenant, from the landlord Towne Plaza. The Plaintiff was not a Headcutters customer and was instead on her way to a different store in Towne Plaza. Nonetheless, Headcutter’s lease with Towne Plaza specifically required Headcutters to procure liability insurance naming Towne Plaza as an additional insured. Headcutters failed to have insurance naming Towne Plaza as an additional insured. The lease also required Headcutters to indemnify Towne Plaza for liabilities arising from Headcutters’ use of the “premises.” The lease provided that Towne Plaza was responsible for snow removal in the parking lot and “Common Area.”
COURT RULING: The Court looked carefully at the precise wording of the Lease. Among other things, the lease required Headcutters to indemnify Towne Plaza for liabilities incurred "on account of or arising from Headcutter’s possession, use, or occupation of the premises." And, it did not specify that the "premises" included the subject portion of the sidewalk immediately abutting the premises. Instead, the lease provided that Towne Plaza was responsible for snow removal in the parking lot and the "Common Area" of the shopping center. The Court noted that any “right to contractual indemnification depends upon the specific language of the contract”, and that “the promise to indemnify should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement.” Thus, the Court found that Towne Plaza failed to prove that the lease obligated Headcutters to indemnify Towne Plaza for any liability. Salon Owner wins.
