The plaintiff moved for summary judgment arising from flood damage allegedly caused by the failure of a flex hose connection installed by a plumbing contractor.
The motion raised two issues: whether the contractor’s contract contained an implied warranty that supplied materials would be of good quality and reasonably fit for their intended purpose, and whether that warranty had been breached.
The court held that contracts for work and materials generally include an implied warranty of fitness unless excluded by the circumstances, and found that such a warranty existed in the contract between the parties.
However, competing expert theories and unresolved factual disputes about the cause of the failure created genuine issues requiring a trial.
Partial summary judgment was granted only on the existence of the implied warranty, with the breach and negligence claims to proceed to trial.
