Floor Express, Inc. v. Daly, 138 Wash. App. 750, 158 P.3d 619 (2007)
In this case, a subcontractor sued a general contractor for failing to make payments on the parties’ contract. The general contractor asserted a counterclaim against the subcontractor for the cost of removing and replacing the subcontractor’s work. On the first day of trial, the subcontractor moved to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing that the project owner was a necessary party and that the general contractor had no standing to sue the subcontractor because the alleged defective work injured only the owner. The trial court granted the motion, but Division Two reversed.
The Court of Appeals noted that, where a subcontractor breaches its agreement with a general contractor by failing to perform the work pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the general contractor has legal exposure to the owner. The court held that the owner was not a necessary party to the litigation under Civil Rule 19 because the general contractor’s claims were based on the subcontract, to which the owner was not a party. The court also held it could afford complete relief to the general contractor, and that the owner’s absence did not impede any of the owner’s interests. Accordingly, the general contractor’s claim against the subcontractor should have been allowed to proceed.