## Facts

- A condominium homeowners association contracted with a roofing contractor between 1991 and 1995 to install or replace nine roofs on condominium buildings.
- Several contracts specified particular manufacturers’ roofing systems (including U.S. Intec and Firestone) and included 10-year manufacturers’ warranties as part of the agreement.
- In 1997, the association learned the manufacturers had no record of issuing warranties for the roofs.
- The association sued for defective workmanship and failure to provide the promised manufacturers’ warranties.
- The contractor attempted to cure by issuing backdated U.S. Intec warranties, offering its own 10-year labor-and-material warranty in place of the Firestone warranty, and agreeing to complete additional work.
- After a bench trial, the court found the roofs were defective, were not installed in accordance with contract and manufacturer specifications, and the contractor did not provide valid manufacturers’ warranties.
- The court awarded $28,612, consisting of a prorated portion of roof replacement costs (reflecting prior use) plus incidental and consequential damages.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the contractor materially breached the roofing contracts by defective installation and failure to provide valid manufacturers’ warranties.
2. Whether the trial court erred in awarding prorated replacement-cost damages plus incidental and consequential damages.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the association.
- Substantial evidence supported the findings that the roofs were defectively installed and did not comply with contract and manufacturer specifications.
- Substantial evidence supported the finding that the contractor failed to provide valid manufacturers’ warranties, including where the contractor lacked authority to issue warranties and installation noncompliance defeated warranty coverage.
- Arguments challenging expert testimony were rejected where objections were not preserved at trial.
- Any asserted evidentiary error was harmless absent a showing of prejudice.
- The damages award, including prorated replacement costs and incidental and consequential damages, was supported by the record and within the trial court’s discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of a trial court’s factual findings in a bench trial is for substantial evidence; the appellate court does not reweigh credibility.
- A contractor’s failure to perform work in compliance with contract terms and manufacturer specifications can constitute a material breach in construction contracts.
- When a contract includes obtaining specific manufacturers’ warranties as part of the bargain, failure to secure valid warranties—or performance that prevents the warranties from being valid—supports a breach finding.
- Replacement-cost damages may be awarded when defects cannot be reasonably cured by repair; such damages may be adjusted to account for partial performance or prior use.
- Incidental and consequential damages are recoverable when supported by evidence that they naturally resulted from the breach.
- Evidentiary challenges generally require preservation at trial, and reversal requires a showing of prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed liability where defective roofing work and the absence of valid promised manufacturers’ warranties supported a finding of material breach, and it upheld a damages award based on prorated roof replacement costs plus incidental and consequential losses proved at trial.


Panorama Vill. Homeowners Ass'n v. Golden Rule Roofing, Inc., 10 P.3d 417 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000)