Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves Ram Development Company, Inc.'s appeal of a summary judgment dismissing its compensation claim as a general contractor. The central issue concerns whether RCW 18.27.080 bars the claim, which mandates contractors to be duly registered at the time of contracting. The court concludes that Ram Development substantially complied with these requirements, despite clerical errors in the corporate name registration. The issue arose when the Secretary of State informed the incorporators, Hubbard and Bolme, that 'RAM Corporation' was already taken, leading to the name 'RAM Development Co. Inc.' being used. The court distinguishes this case from Dunkelberger v. Baker, where non-compliance led to a compensation bar. Here, the court finds the errors did not affect the insurance or surety validity. Consequently, the summary judgment is reversed, allowing the claim to proceed. Notably, the opinion is deemed non-precedential and will not be published under RCW 2.06.040. Judges Reed and Soule concur, suggesting that sufficient affidavits could have precluded the necessity for appeal.
Legal Issues Addressed
Clerical Errors in Corporate Name and Legal Remediessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court finds that errors in the corporate name do not affect the validity of surety or insurance coverage, differentiating from Dunkelberger.
Reasoning: In contrast, the current case involves Ram Development Company, Inc., where it is evident that any misrepresentation of the corporate name was a mere clerical error, not affecting the validity of the insurance or surety coverage.
Contractor Registration Compliance under RCW 18.27.080subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determines that the plaintiff substantially complied with contractor registration requirements despite clerical errors in the corporate name.
Reasoning: The court found that the plaintiff substantially complied with the contractor registration requirements based on precedents set in previous cases.
Precedential Value and Publication under RCW 2.06.040subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The opinion is deemed non-precedential and will not be published, distinguishing it from Dunkelberger v. Baker.
Reasoning: The opinion will not be published under RCW 2.06.040 due to its lack of precedential value, but it distinguishes itself from the case Dunkelberger v. Baker, 12 Wn. App. 917 (1975).
Summary Judgment Review Favoring Nonmoving Partysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: In reviewing the summary judgment, evidence must be interpreted in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Ram Development.
Reasoning: The case requires that evidence be reviewed favorably for the nonmoving party, the plaintiff.