You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Warren, Little & Lund, Inc. v. Max J. Kuney Co.

Citations: 56 Wash. App. 74; 782 P.2d 222; 1989 Wash. App. LEXIS 360Docket: No. 9566-5-III

Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; November 21, 1989; Washington; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a dispute involving a subcontract for mechanical work on the Yakima County Jail project, the appellant, Kuney, challenged a trial court's summary judgment in favor of WL&L, the subcontractor. The issue arose after Yakima County sued Kuney for construction defects, leading Kuney to file a third-party complaint against WL&L. Concurrently, Kuney withheld payments on an unrelated project in Spokane County, citing a setoff against potential liabilities from the ongoing Yakima litigation. The trial court dismissed Kuney's counterclaim for breach of the Yakima contract and granted WL&L's motion for summary judgment regarding the Spokane retainage. On appeal, Kuney argued for the right to a setoff between its unliquidated counterclaim and WL&L's liquidated claim, as well as an equitable setoff based on WL&L's financial condition. Affirming the lower court's decision, the appellate court held that an unliquidated claim cannot offset a liquidated one and found no grounds for equitable setoff, noting WL&L's financial capability to cover potential liabilities. The judgment was affirmed, with no reconsideration warranted.

Legal Issues Addressed

Equitable Setoff Conditions

Application: Despite Kuney's argument for an equitable setoff based on WL&L's financial status, the court found no basis for such relief, citing WL&L's sufficient assets and insurance coverage.

Reasoning: Additionally, Kuney contends it should have been allowed an equitable setoff based on WL&L's financial status. However, the court finds no basis for equitable setoff, as Kuney did not demonstrate inadequate means to recover from WL&L, noting WL&L's assets and ongoing insurance coverage.

Setoff between Liquidated and Unliquidated Claims

Application: The court reaffirmed that an unliquidated claim cannot be used to offset a liquidated claim, denying Kuney's attempt to apply this principle in the context of withholding retainage.

Reasoning: The central issue is whether Kuney could offset its unliquidated counterclaim against WL&L's liquidated claim.