CompFox AI Summary
Mark and Karen Haire initiated legal action against Fug-ro South, Inc. and Nathan Watson Company, alleging negligence and breach of implied warranties related to severe foundation issues in their home. The Haires, who purchased the home as is in 2001, argued that Fugro, a geotechnical firm, and NWC, the subdivision developer, were responsible for the damages that arose post-purchase. The trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for Fugro, finding the Haires' pre-purchase knowledge of potential problems barred their implied warranty claims and noting their unchallenged negligence claim dismissal. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for NWC, ruling that the as is contractual provision between the Haires and the seller did not extend to non-contracting third parties.
Haire v. Nathan Watson Co. is a workers' compensation case decided in Court of Appeals of Texas. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Court of Appeals of Texas.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Mark and Karen Haire initiated legal action against Fug-ro South, Inc. and Nathan Watson Company, alleging negligence and breach of implied warranties related to severe foundation issues in their home. The Haires, who purchased the home "as is" in 2001, argued that Fugro, a geotechnical firm, and NWC, the subdivision developer, were responsible for the damages that arose post-purchase. The trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for Fugro, finding the Haires' pre-purchase knowledge of potential problems barred their implied warranty claims and noting their unchallenged negligence claim dismissal. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for NWC, ruling that the "as is" contractual provision between the Haires and the seller did not extend to non-contracting third parties.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.