The owner of an apartment complex sued the builder for construction defect claims. The defendant moved for summary judgment on limitations and lack of notice, which is an element of the plaintiff’s express warranty claim. The trial court granted the summary judgment motion without specifying the grounds. For reasons that are not clear from the opinion, the appellant limited its issues on appeal to the express warranty claim, but only addressed the limitations argument. That resulted in affirmation of the summary judgment ruling. Because the appellant failed to challenge the other ground — i.e., lack of notice — on which summary judgment could have been granted, the Court of Appeals upheld the judgment based on the unchallenged ground.
In this breach of warranty case, the Court upheld the trial court’s summary judgment dismissal because the contract at issue did not contain an express warranty. Although the plaintiff argued that the contract listed the services the defendant was to provide, the Court found that “[t]he mere identification of what services are to be performed is not, without more, an express warrant that those services are to be performed to any particular standard or quality.”