CompFox AI Summary
Mark and Karen Haire (Haires) sued Nathan Watson Company (NWC), the subdivision developer, and Fugro South, Inc. (Fugro), a geotechnical engineering firm, for alleged negligence and breach of implied warranties under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) due to severe foundation issues in their home. The trial court granted summary judgment to both NWC and Fugro. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Fugro but reversed and remanded the summary judgment in favor of NWC. The court found that the as is provision in the Haires' home purchase contract did not apply to NWC or Fugro because they were not parties to the contract. However, the claims against Fugro were upheld due to the Haires' failure to challenge the no-duty argument for negligence and their pre-purchase knowledge barring the implied warranty claim.
Mark Haire and Karen Haire v. Nathan Watson Company and Fugro South, Inc. is a workers' compensation case decided in Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth). 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 Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth).
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Mark and Karen Haire (Haires) sued Nathan Watson Company (NWC), the subdivision developer, and Fugro South, Inc. (Fugro), a geotechnical engineering firm, for alleged negligence and breach of implied warranties under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) due to severe foundation issues in their home. The trial court granted summary judgment to both NWC and Fugro. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Fugro but reversed and remanded the summary judgment in favor of NWC. The court found that the "as is" provision in the Haires' home purchase contract did not apply to NWC or Fugro because they were not parties to the contract. However, the claims against Fugro were upheld due to the Haires' failure to challenge the "no-duty" argument for negligence and their pre-purchase knowledge barring the implied warranty claim.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.