The recent case of Angela Harvey v. Olshan Foundation can be summed up as follows: 1) document everything, 2) keep that documentation, and 3) always provide those documents to your attorney. This was made abundantly clear when the Harvey Court reversed a dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Olshan.

Angela Harvey bought a pre-owned home in 2013 with a disclosure from the prior owners that the foundation had been previously repaired. The disclosure, however, did not provide any information about who did the repairs (presumably Olshan), when the repairs were done, or the scope of the repairs. Before closing on the home, Harvey had both the home and foundation inspected which revealed a need for repairs to the foundation on the back addition to the home (“the disputed area”), and then received a bid to fix the foundation.

Harvey paid Olshan to have the previous owner’s lifetime warranty for the foundation repairs transferred to her. Several months later, Harvey requested an inspection by Olshan, and Olshan performed certain warranty work by adjusting pilings it had previously installed.

Harvey later requested that Olshan perform more work on her home, and Olshan performed another inspection of the home. During this inspection, Harvey was given a diagram that showed the work Olshan had done in the past and the subsequent recommended work, but the diagram did not distinguish certain markings. Olshan refused to honor the lifetime warranty because it claimed the warranty did not cover the disputed area as it did not perform work on that area in the past. The transfer of this warranty, and the lack of documentation surrounding the work covered by the warranty, are the cruxes of the Court’s ruling.

As the Court reviewed whether the trial court was correct in granting Olshan’s motion for summary judgment for Harvey’s claim for breach of express warranty, it focused on the fact that Olshan provided no documentation of what the warranty covered, or what previous work they performed on the home. Harvey, on the other hand, provided the Olshan diagram and because the markings on it were not clearly defined, raised a question about the areas Olshan worked on in the past and what scope of work the warranty covered.

Ultimately, because the Court ruled that neither Olshan’s motion for summary judgment on the claim for breach of express warranty nor its motion for summary judgment for breach of contract and DTPA should have been granted. Olshan had little to no documentation of their previous work. Had Olshan been able to show through documentation that it did not perform work on the disputed area, the trial court’s ruling very well may not have been reversed.

In summary, document your work and keep internal records, make sure your documentation and records are clear, keep this documentation in a safe place, and most important, always provide all documentation to your attorney(s). The attorneys in our Austin and Dallas offices are available to answer any questions you may have.

Legal Disclaimers

This blog is made available by Gerstle Snelson, LLP for educational purposes and to provide general information about the law, only.  Neither this document nor the information contained in it is intended to constitute legal advice on any specific matter or of a general nature.  Use of the blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with Gerstle Snelson, LLP where one does not already exist with the firm.  This blog should not be used a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney.

©Gerstle Snelson, LLP 2020.  All rights reserved.  Any unauthorized reprint or use of this material is prohibited.  No part of this blog may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system without the express written permission of Gerstle Snelson, LLP.