From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murphy Contractors, Inc. V. King County

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Apr 22, 2002
111 Wn. App. 1017 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002)

Summary

rejecting promissory estoppel claim when subcontractor could not have reasonably relied on County's promise to obtain insurance in County's contract with general contractor when the contract when the contract specifically disclaimed third-party rights in subcontractors

Summary of this case from Sovereign Bank v. BJ'S Wholesale Club, Inc.

Opinion

No. 47645-9-I.

April 22, 2002.

Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, No. 99-2-18386-0, Suzanne M. Barnett, J., entered September 29 and November 9, 2000.


Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Becker, C.J., concurred in by Grosse and Appelwick, JJ.


Summaries of

Murphy Contractors, Inc. V. King County

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Apr 22, 2002
111 Wn. App. 1017 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002)

rejecting promissory estoppel claim when subcontractor could not have reasonably relied on County's promise to obtain insurance in County's contract with general contractor when the contract when the contract specifically disclaimed third-party rights in subcontractors

Summary of this case from Sovereign Bank v. BJ'S Wholesale Club, Inc.
Case details for

Murphy Contractors, Inc. V. King County

Case Details

Full title:DONALD B. MURPHY CONTRACTORS, INC., Appellant , V. KING COUNTY, Respondent

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One

Date published: Apr 22, 2002

Citations

111 Wn. App. 1017 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002)
111 Wash. App. 1017
49 P.3d 912

Citing Cases

Howell v. King County

[1, 2] In 1907, this court held that streets dedicated in platted tracts of land outside of cities and towns…

Burkhard v. Bowen

Laws of 1909, chapter 90, § 1, p. 189. We held in Murphy v. King County, 45 Wn. 587, 592, 88 P. 1115, that §…