1515-1519 Lakeview Boulevard Condominium Ass’n v. Apartment Sales Corp.

43 P.3d 1233 (2002)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Apartment Sales Corporation (D) sought and received a permit from the city to build three townhouse condominiums on a steep slope in between the city's Capitol Hill and Eastlake districts. The slope consists mostly of a permeable mixture of sand and fill resting on top of an impermeable mixture of silt and clay, a configuration that often leads to landslides. Because the sites were in a potential slide area, the developers were required to obtain several zoning variances. The city (D1) imposed three specific conditions before it would grant building permits. First, the developers were required to inform all purchasers of the risk of soil movement. Second, continuous insurance was required. Third, the developers were required to grant and record a covenant releasing the city from liability for damages caused by soil movement, except for damages caused by the city's sole negligence. The homeowners (P) do not dispute that it was properly recorded or that they had notice. Ps received numerous assurances from the developers that the site was stable and the homes would not slip. Lakeview was flooded at least four times between November 1992 and November 1996. In each flood, at least a foot of water inundated the garages and basements of the units. The public storm drain system overflowed each time the condominiums flooded. Eventually, three condominiums that were rendered uninhabitable when the soil underlying the property gave way precipitously during winter storms. P brought suit against several parties, including the City of Seattle (D1). The homeowners argued the city should not have permitted the condominiums to be built due to the latent risk of soil movement, and that D1's storm drains had contributed to the slide. Ps settled with the developers, and this Court ultimately dismissed the claim against the builders based on the statute of limitations. D1 successfully moved for summary judgment based on the covenant, assumption of the risk, and the public duty doctrine. Ps appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. That court specifically found that the covenant did not run with the land, but found the negligent permitting claims were barred by the public duty doctrine. The Court of Appeals reinstated claims related to negligent maintenance of the storm drains. D1 petitioned for review.