Skip to main content

Union Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. WSDOT

Wash. Ct. App.September 10, 2009No. 27370-9-III
Plaintiff WinWashington State Department of Transportation
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Schultheis
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

Union Elevator prevailed on its appeal, with the court reversing the trial court's denial of interest on relocation assistance benefits and holding the State liable for interest as part of just compensation under the Relocation Act. The court affirmed the limitation of attorney fees to the EAJA statutory maximum of $25,000.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Union Elevator & Warehouse Company was forced to relocate when the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) took over their property for a public project. When a government agency takes private property, it must pay "just compensation," which includes relocation assistance benefits. Union Elevator received these benefits but argued they should also receive interest payments on the money, since there were delays in getting paid. The state refused to pay interest, leading to a court battle. **What the Court Decided** The appeals court sided with Union Elevator, overturning a lower court's decision. The court ruled that when the government pays relocation benefits under the Relocation Act, those payments must include interest if there are delays. This interest is considered part of the "just compensation" that property owners are entitled to receive. However, the court limited Union Elevator's attorney fees to $25,000, which is the maximum allowed under federal law. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling protects workers whose businesses are displaced by government projects. It ensures that if there are delays in receiving relocation payments, the government must pay interest to make up for the financial impact of those delays, helping displaced businesses stay afloat during transitions.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.