What are Latent Defects?

Useful Rulings on Latent Defects

Recent Rulings on Latent Defects

MARIA ROA, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale. (Id.) In the case of a latent defect, a product is rendered unmerchantable, and the warranty of merchantability is breached, by the existence of the unseen defect, not by its subsequent discovery. (Id. at 1305.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NIA LOWE CASSELMAN VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1304 [in the case of a latent defect, a product is rendered unmerchantable, and the warranty of merchantability is breached, by the existence of the unseen defect, not by its subsequent discovery].)

  • Hearing

MANUEL CARRILLO, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

While, “[t]he implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale[,]” (Mexia, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p.1304), the statute of limitations does not run from discovery.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RAYMOND SAFARIAN VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

The court further noted that goods with a latent defect may not measure up to the description given by the purchaser and, if the latent defect were known, may not have been salable “as goods of the general kind which were described or supposed to be when bought.” Id. It is not “nonsensical” for an automobile to have a latent defect which renders the vehicle unmerchantable at the time of sale, but is not discovered until after the warranty period has expired.

  • Hearing

JAMES VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA

The implied warranty may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale. (Id. at pp. 1304-05.) The crucial question, then, is when James discovered a defect that caused the Rogue to not conform. (Id. at p. 1308.) This is a fact question that almost always must be resolved by a finder of fact, rather than the Court on demurrer. (Id.) In addition, to sustain a demurrer on statute of limitations grounds, the Court must find that the defect appears conclusively on the face of the complaint.

  • Hearing

LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE CORPORATION VS LTD CONSTRUCTION

Wear and tear, gradual deterioration, any quality in the property that causes it to damage or destroy itself, hidden or latent defect, rust, wet or dry rot, mold, dampness of atmosphere, freezing or extremes of temperature, insects, vermin, moths, rodents, or worms” (“Mold Exclusion”). (UMF 25, 41, 57, 75, 117.) The policy also contains a Faulty Workmanship Exclusion: “We will not pay for ‘loss’ caused by or resulting from any of the following.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE CORPORATION VS LTD CONSTRUCTION

Wear and tear, gradual deterioration, any quality in the property that causes it to damage or destroy itself, hidden or latent defect, rust, wet or dry rot, mold, dampness of atmosphere, freezing or extremes of temperature, insects, vermin, moths, rodents, or worms” (“Mold Exclusion”). (UMF 8.) Another exclusion states, “We will not pay for a ‘loss’ caused by or resulting from . . . Rain, . . . whether driven by wind or not. But we will pay for ‘loss’ . . .

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KUCICH VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC

., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1304, the court acknowledged section 1791.1, but held “[t]he implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale.” Mexia sued for breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly due to a latent defect, i.e. his boat engine corroded. (Id. at 1301-1302.)

  • Hearing

MARK A. CAZARES, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

There is nothing that suggests a requirement that the purchaser discover and report to the seller a latent defect within that time period. (Mexia, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at 1310, bold emphasis added.) The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale. . . . Indeed, “[u]ndisclosed latent defects … are the very evil that the implied warranty of merchantability was designed to remedy.” . . .

  • Hearing

HAZEL MENDEZ, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

While, “[t]he implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale[,]” (Mexia, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p.1304), the statute of limitations does not run from discovery.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SANGJOON JAY LEE, , AS TRUSTEE OF THE SANGJOON AND JOONGWHA LEE LIVING TRUST DATED APRIL 24 2008, ET AL. VS PAUL MCGRATH, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

If a latent defect is discovered, an action must be filed within three years (§ 338) or four years (§ 337) of discovery, but in any event must be filed within ten years (§ 337.15) of substantial completion. … ‘[S]ection 337.15 imposes an absolute 10-year bar, based on the date of ‘substantial completion,’ regardless of discovery.’” Id. at 355 (internal citations omitted).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

NUTSIRI KIKKUL VS REDONDO BEACH HOSPITALITY COMPANY LLC ET A

She argues that that her vehicle had a latent defect, which renders her vehicle unmerchantable. (Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1305 [In case of latent defects, product is rendered unmerchantable, and warranty of merchantability is breached by existence of unseen defect, not by its subsequent discovery].) Though that may be true, that does not address Defendant’s argument, that Plaintiff purchased the car from another entity.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

LINDA MARIE DE LA RIVA VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

“There is nothing that suggests a requirement that the purchaser discover and report to the seller a latent defect within [the duration period].” (Id.) Defendant posits that plaintiff’s claims accrued on November 15, 2015 when plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle. Therefore, defendant argues that because plaintiff did not file this complaint until April 20, 2020, her Song-Beverly claims fall outside the four-year statute of limitations by about five months.

  • Hearing

FRANKEL VS TESORO

In addition to the foregoing, the court also finds that the second and third causes of action are subject to California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") § 337.15's 10-year statute of limitations. CCP § 337.15 provides that the 10-year limitations period "shall commence upon substantial completion of the improvement . . . ." Cal. Code Civ. P. § 337.15(g). Here, the Complaint makes clear that Defendants completed the survey and boundary adjustment work on or about April 30, 2004. See the Complaint at ¶ 15.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NATURES PRODUCE VS DEDEAUX PROPERTIES LLC ET AL

Rather, the proper statute of limitations here for a latent defect is two-fold. “[Code of Civil Procedure] Sections 337.1 and 337.15 apply to actions for damages against persons involved in the construction of improvements to real property, … , and establish four-year and 10-year statutes of limitation for patent and latent defects, respectively.” (Mills v. Forestex Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 643.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ARCHIE HEATH, ET AL. VS CHAMPION DODGE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

There is nothing that suggests a requirement that the purchaser discover and report to the seller a latent defect within that time period. (Mexia, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at 1310 [bold emphasis added].) The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale. (See Moore v. Hubbard & Johnson [*1305] Lumber Co. (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 236, 241 [308 P.2d 794]; Brittalia Ventures v. Stuke Nursery Co., Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 17, 24 [62 Cal.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

360 RESIDENCES, L.P. V. BOVIS LEND LEASE, INC., ET AL.

Proc., § 337.15.) 14 [T]he critical point is completion of the improvement, or aspect of the improvement, for which a given defendant is responsible: The period of repose 15 commences when the specific improvement alleged to be defective is substantially complete even if it is part of a larger development that is completed 16 later, and, as to a particular subcontractor, upon completion of that subcontractor’s work, not the total development of which it is part. 17 18 (Estuary Owners Assn. v.

  • Hearing

ROBERT BATTAGLIA VS. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC

Breach of Implied Warranty “The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale.” (Mexia v. Rinker Boat C0,, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1304.) “In the case of a latent defect, a product is rendered unmerchantable, and the warranty of merchantability is breached, by the existence of the unseen defect, not by its subsequent discovery.” (Id. at p. 1305.)

  • Hearing

SHARON VASQUEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s fraud claim was complete with all requisite elements at the time of the purchase in November 2010, when the vehicle was purchased with its allegedly latent defect. (Complaint, ¶ 6.) Thus, Defendant argues, Plaintiff had until November 2013 to bring this fraud cause of action. The Complaint was filed in this action on November 26, 2019. A cause of action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

JOHNNY JACKSON, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ fraud claim was complete with all requisite elements at the time of the purchase on November 13, 2011, when the vehicle was purchased with its allegedly latent defect. (1AC, ¶ 20.) Thus, Defendant argues, Plaintiffs had until November 13, 2014 to bring their fraud cause of action. A cause of action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc. § 338(d)).

  • Hearing

360 RESIDENCES, L.P. V. BOVIS LEND LEASE, INC., ET AL.

Proc., § 337.15.) 2 [T]he critical point is completion of the improvement, or aspect of the improvement, for which a given defendant is responsible: The period of repose 3 commences when the specific improvement alleged to be defective is substantially complete even if it is part of a larger development that is completed 4 later, and, as to a particular subcontractor, upon completion of that subcontractor’s work, not the total development of which it is part. 5 6 (Estuary Owners Assn. v.

  • Hearing

PAUL WARGO, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

“The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale. Indeed, ‘[u]ndisclosed latent defects… are the very evil that the implied warranty of merchantability was designed to remedy.’ In the case of a latent defect, a product is rendered unmerchantable, and the warranty of merchantability is breached, by the existence of the unseen defect, not by its subsequent discovery…’ The Song–Beverly Act does not include its own statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

MARIA ROA, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

“The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale.” (Id.) “In the case of a latent defect, a product is rendered unmerchantable, and the warranty of merchantability is breached, by the existence of the unseen defect, not by its subsequent discovery.” (Id. at 1305.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

In opposition, Plaintiff appears to contend that the SAC’s fourth through sixth causes of action are sufficiently pled because Plaintiff may be able to prove that the Subject Vehicle had a latent defect and/or prior damage. (Opposition, 1-5.) However, Plaintiff also concedes that the Subject Vehicle had a 30-day warranty period. (Id.)

  • Hearing

PETER VOGEL, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

“The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale.” (Mexia, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 1304.) The implied warranty lasts as long as “any reasonable express warranty that accompanies the product, but in no event shorter than 60 days or longer than one year.” (Id. at p. 1310.) Whether a latent defect existed at the time of the sale and remained latent for a number of years until it was discovered is a question of fact for the jury.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.