Holden-mcdaniel Partners v. City Of Arlington
73528-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 31, 2016Background
- HM owned industrial property in Arlington that experienced recurring flooding after nearby Gleneagle residential/golf-course development altered stormwater flows. HM sued developers, the City, and later BNSF alleging negligent design, approval, and maintenance of stormwater facilities causing flooding and damages.
- HM filed two related suits in 1995 (a permit-delay suit and a flooding suit), presented a separate Claim for Damages to the City, and later settled with the City in 1998 by executing a Release that expressly reserved some "future claims relating to flooding" except those arising out of conduct described in the Permit Lawsuit complaint (cause No. 95-2-03498-3).
- Post-settlement modifications to the drainage system (including new ponds, culverts, and roadway changes) changed flooding frequency over time; HM alleged further flooding and substantial lease-related damages in a 2011 suit against the City, developers, and in 2012 added BNSF.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on multiple grounds: the Release barred pre-1995 claims, res judicata barred claims arising before the Release date, HM failed to show damages from post-1995 conduct, intentional torts were subsumed by negligence, BNSF owed no duty, and a letter supporting damages was excluded as inadmissible hearsay.
- The Court of Appeals reversed as to (1) the Release defense—finding the Release’s plain language did not bar HM’s reserved future flooding claims unless they arose from the Permit Lawsuit complaint and the Claim for Damages was not automatically part of that complaint under CR 10(c); and (2) the summary dismissal for lack of damages on post-1995 conduct, finding factual disputes about causation and improvement sources. The court affirmed dismissal of intentional torts, BNSF claims (duty), and exclusion of the BBNA letter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of 1998 Release | Release reserved future flooding claims; reference to Permit Lawsuit should be read narrowly (does not include Claim for Damages) | Release should bar earlier and related future flooding claims because Claim for Damages was attached to the complaint (CR 10(c)) and parties intended broad finality | Release interpreted by plain language: it reserves future flooding claims except those arising from Permit Lawsuit; Claim for Damages was not automatically part of that complaint under CR 10(c); trial court erred in applying Release to bar claims |
| Res judicata effect of prior settlement/dismissal | Settlement ended litigation; defendants argue Release and dismissal bar relitigation | Defendants assert settlement/res judicata should preclude later claims | No final judgment on merits (dismissal without prejudice); settlement alone did not create res judicata; res judicata inapplicable |
| Damages from post-1995 conduct | HM: factual dispute whether City/WRJV caused worsening/failure of drainage after 1998; improvements attributed partly to City actions so damages remain triable | Defendants: flooding frequency improved overall vs. pre-development baseline and HM cannot show net increase; no genuine issue of material fact | Reversed summary judgment on damages—disputed factual issues (causation, attribution of improvements) preclude summary disposition |
| Duty of BNSF to maintain ditch/drainage | HM: BNSF voluntarily allowed use of ditch and assumed duty to maintain (Restatement §365 theory) | BNSF: no legal duty as private landowner to HM to maintain drainage; Washington law hasn't adopted broad Restatement duty | Court affirmed dismissal—no duty found as matter of law for private landowner maintenance obligation |
Key Cases Cited
- Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., 179 Wn.2d 684 (rules for reviewing summary judgment)
- McGuire v. Bates, 169 Wn.2d 185 (contract/settlement interpretation principles)
- P.E. Systems, LLC v. CPI Corp., 176 Wn.2d 198 (scope of CR 10(c) and definition of "written instrument")
- Young v. Key Pharmaceuticals, 112 Wn.2d 216 (summary judgment factual inference rules)
- Hearst Commc'ns, Inc. v. Seattle Times Co., 154 Wn.2d 493 (contract interpretation—ordinary meaning controls)
- Christensen v. Royal School Dist. No. 160, 156 Wn.2d 62 (existence of legal duty in negligence)