McKinley Home Foundation v. West Hills Construction CA2/2
Filed 12/22/20 McKinley Home Foundation v. West Hills Construction CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
MCKINLEY HOME B292720 FOUNDATION et al., (Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Appellants, Super. Ct. No. KC069072)
v.
WEST HILLS CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Daniel Thomas Oki, Judge. Reversed.
Kassouni Law and Timothy V. Kassouni for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Ropers Jajeski, Terry Anastassiou, Tim M. Agajanian, and German A. Marcucci for Defendant and Respondent. _________________________
Plaintiffs and appellants McKinley Home Foundation (Foundation) and McKinley Children’s Center, Inc. (Children’s Center) (collectively appellants) sued West Hills Construction, Inc. (respondent) for, inter alia, breach of warranty after the failure of a solar power system that respondent installed. The trial court granted summary judgment for respondent, concluding that the warranty was unambiguous and did not apply because the solar power system and its failed components were supplied by a third party. We reverse summary judgment because the warranty was ambiguous, and there are triable issues as to what the warranty covers. FACTS The Pleadings Appellants sued respondent and eventually filed an amended complaint. They both alleged causes of action for breach of warranty and breach of contract, and Children’s Center alleged a cause of action for breach of contract on a third-party beneficiary theory. The amended complaint averred: Foundation contracted with respondent to install a solar power system at the Children’s Center campus. “The solar energy system was largely manufactured and supplied by GreenVolts, Inc. [(Greenvolts)]. [Greenvolts] has since filed [for] bankruptcy and has been liquidated. [Respondent] supplied any additional components necessary for installation that were not supplied by [Greenvolts], including the wiring, its associated conduit, and the racking system needed to hold the solar panels.” Respondent warranted that the solar energy system would be free from defects and would experience less than a 15 percent reduction in power output for a period of 10 years. The
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)