Cited by

Constr., Inc., ¶ 5 (2008)).

Constr., Inc., ¶ 5 (2008); JTF Aviation Holdings Inc. v. CliftonLarsenAllen 2 The parties appear to agree that the closely related party doctrine and alternative estoppel theory are the same doctrine with different names, the first applies in the forum selection clause context and the second in the arbitration clause context

Constr., Inc., ¶ 5 (2008) ().

Constr., Inc., ¶ 13 (2008)).

Constr., Inc., –78, ¶¶ 15–19 (2008) (holding initial buyer may enforce implied warranty against builder that was not party to the original sales contract); Sirrah Enters., –45, ¶¶ 8–12 (2017) (recognizing implied warranty is a contract right).

Lofts at Fillmore Condominium Ass’n v. Reliance Commercial Constr., Inc., ¶ 5 (2008) (noting that the implied warranty in a builder-vendor contract includes construction done in a workmanlike manner).

Ass’n v. Reliance Commercial Constr., Inc. (Lofts), ¶ 5 (2008).

Ass’n v. Reliance Commercial Constr., Inc., ¶ 5 (2008), ).

Ass’n v. Reliance Commercial Constr., Inc., citing Treadway v. W. Cotton Oil & Ginning Co., (“[m]utuality of obligation” required for valid contract and exists only when both parties bound).

Ass’n v. Reliance Commercial Constr., Inc., ¶ 5 (2008) (“As a general rule only the parties and privies to the contract may enforce it.”) (punctuation and citation omitted).

Ass’n v. Reliance Commercial Constr., Inc., ¶ 12, ); see also Treadway v. W. Cotton Oil & Ginning Co.

Ass’n v. Reliance Commercial Constr., Inc., see also Woodward v. Chirco Constr.

Ass’n v. Reliance Commercial Constr., Inc., -78 ¶¶ 15-19, - 37 (2008); see also Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., (noting that “privity is not required to maintain an action for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability”).

Ass'n v. Reliance Commercial Constr., Inc., , 576 n. 2, ¶ 11, , 735 n. 2 (2008) (citing Nastri v. Wood Bros. Homes, Inc., , as "holding that the Arizona decisions establish one implied warranty").

Ass’n v. Reliance Commercial Constr., Inc., ¶ 5 , (citation and internal quotation omitted).

Ass’n v. Reliance Commercial Constr., Inc., ¶ 5 , Woodward v. Chirco Constr.

Ass’n v. Reliance Commercial Constr., Inc., n. 3 , , 736 n. 3 (2008).

Const., Inc., , 576 n. 2, ¶ 11, , 735 n. 2 (2008) (assuming without deciding that implied warranty of workmanship and habitability could be enforced against developer).

Ass’n v. Reliance Commercial Const., Inc.

The trial court, P.3d 1081 (App. 2003), and Hayden Business Center Condominiums Ass’n v. Pegasus Development Corp., P.3d 157 (App. 2005), disapproved of in part by Lofts at Fillmore Condominium Ass’n v. Reliance Commercial Construction, Inc., P.3d 733 (2008), applied the “Economic Loss Doctrine” to the case and found the damage to the building itself was not “qualifying property damage for the purpose of bringing a negligence claim.” The court thus concluded Valley Forge’s negligence claim was b

Ass'n v. Reliance Commercial Constr., Inc., n. 4 , , 737 n. 4 (2008) (noting § 12-552 imposes eight-year statute of limitations from substantial completion of dwelling, regardless whether defective construction discovered during that period); see also § 12-1363(H) (purchaser's notice under Act "tolls the applicable statute of limitations, includin