What are Latent Defects?

Useful Resources for Latent Defects

Recent Rulings on Latent Defects

276-292 of 292 results

KENNETH M WANDEL VS. CENTEX HOMES

Plaintiff sufficiently pleads around the ten-year and three year statute of limitations pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 337.15 and 338 by alleging specific facts justifying their forbearance from filing suit and describing certain injuries to real property occurring on July 24, 2008, respectively. (See Lantzy v. Centex Homes (2003) 31 Cal.4th 363, 384; Gentry v. Ebay (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 816, 824; Lee v. Escrow (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 915, 917.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2011

ALLSTATE INS. CO. AS SUBROGEE VS. TAYLOR MORRISON SERVICES, INC.

P asserts subrogation rights as homeowners insurer on an alleged latent defect in the construction of a home. D submits a certified 8/19/03 grant deed, of which this Court takes judicial notice. D demurs under Civil Code § 943(a), asserting that such a plaintiff must avail itself of the prelitigations procedures of Civil Code § 910 et seq. Rather than impose a pleading requirement on these cases, the preferred remedy, as suggested in Standard Pacific Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 176 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2010

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LAURA RODRIGUEZ VS. WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING LLC

So, if P complains of a "latent" defect, any claim on a latent defect first discovered in April 2007 would expire at the time of the 10-year staute of repose in September 2009, at the latest.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2010

ARUNDEL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., A CALIFORNIA VS. ARUNDEL GREEN PARTNERS,A CALIFORNIA LIMITED ET AL

CCP section 337.15 bars this claim. The Certificate of Final Completion was issued 4/28/98. ZCON never entered into any agreement to toll the statute of limitations. No reasonable probability that defect can be cured by amendment. =(302/CWW)

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2010

MARK CORNWALL ET AL VS GILBERT GARCIA ET AL

Garcia, Woody and Long); 4) negligence – latent defect and breach of warranty (all plaintiffs v. Garcia, Woody and Blankenship); and 6) negligent misrepresentation (Cornwall v. Woody only; Molina v. Garcia, Woody and Blankenship). The Garcia and Blankenship defendants, along with Woody and Long, filed a Cross- Complaint for breach of fiduciary duty and indemnification against Mark Cornwall.

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2010

MARK CORNWALL ET AL VS GILBERT GARCIA ET AL

Garcia, Woody and Long); 4) negligence – latent defect and breach of warranty (all plaintiffs v. Garcia, Woody and Blankenship); and 6) negligent misrepresentation (Cornwall v. Woody only; Molina v. Garcia, Woody and Blankenship). The Garcia and Blankenship defendants, along with Woody and Long, filed a Cross- Complaint for breach of fiduciary duty and indemnification against Mark Cornwall.

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2010

HOWARD AVERY VS. SHERWOOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.

The Sherwood defendants' MSJ/SAI is based on statute of limitations arguments: the bar of the 10 year statute of limitations for latent defects (CCP §337.15); the 3 year statute of limitations for plainitffs' negligence and strict liability claims (CCP §338); and the 4 year statute of limitations for the breach of implied warranty claims (CCP §337). 1.

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2009

MARK CORNWALL ET AL VS GILBERT GARCIA ET AL

[Complaint ¶ 79] This allegation appears in the “negligence – latent defect and breach of warranty” cause of action. This allegation is far too uncertain to survive demurrer. Because of this uncertainty, it is not clear whether an action based on any such defects is barred by the prior litigation. The court will sustain the demurrer of Garcia and Blankenship to the complaint of Mark and D’Arcy Cornwall.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2009

MARK CORNWALL ET AL VS GILBERT GARCIA ET AL

[Complaint ¶ 79] This allegation appears in the “negligence – latent defect and breach of warranty” cause of action. This allegation is far too uncertain to survive demurrer. Because of this uncertainty, it is not clear whether an action based on any such defects is barred by the prior litigation. The court will sustain the demurrer of Garcia and Blankenship to the complaint of Mark and D’Arcy Cornwall.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2009

49 ZOE STREET HOMEOWERS'ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA VS. CHARLES O.JONES CO.,INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL

The complaint is barred by the statute of limitations, CCP 337.15. The complaint was filed when plaintiff's corporate status was suspended and remained suspended when the limitations period expired. The statute of limitations is a substantive defense and the revival of plaintiff's corporate status is not entitled to retroactive application. Benton v. County of Napa (1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1485, 1490. =(302/PJM/AY)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2008

49 ZOE STREET HOMEOWERS'ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA VS. CHARLES O.JONES CO.,INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL

The complaint is barred by the statute of limitations, CCP 337.15. The complaint was filed when plaintiff's corporate status was suspended and remained suspended when the limitations period expired. The statute of limitations is a substantive defense and the revival of plaintiff's corporate status is not entitled to retroactive application. Benton v. County of Napa (1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1485, 1490. =(302/PJM/AY)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2008

49 ZOE STREET HOMEOWERS'ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA VS. CHARLES O.JONES CO.,INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL

The complaint is barred by the statute of limitations, CCP 337.15. The complaint was filed when plaintiff's corporate status was suspended and remained suspended when the limitations period expired. The statute of limitations is a substantive defense and the revival of plaintiff's corporate status is not entitled to retroactive application. Benton v. County of Napa (1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1485, 1490. =(302/PJM/AY)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2008

49 ZOE STREET HOMEOWERS'ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA VS. CHARLES O.JONES CO.,INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL

THE COMPLAINT IS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CCP 337.15. THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED WHEN PLAINTIFF'S CORPORATE STATUS WAS SUSPENDED AND REMAINED SUSPENDED WHEN THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD EXPIRED. THIS IS SUBSTANTIAL DEFENSE AND THE REVIVAL OF THE CORPORATE STATUS IS NOT ENTITLED TO RETOACTIVE APPLICATION. BENTON V. COUNRTY OF NAPA (1991) 226 CAL. APP 3RD 1485, 1490. =(302/PJM/AY)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2008

JACKSON PLAZA HOMEOWNERS VS MADJA CORP

Centex Homes (2003) 31 Cal.4th 363 is a change in the law related to CCP section 337.15. To the extent the motion relates to CCP section 337.15, the Court may consider it if due diligence has been shown. Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 199-1200. The affidavit filed by defendants fails to explain the delay in bringing this motion.

  • Hearing

    Mar 24, 2008

TAYLOR KOROBOW VS. SUSAN HARDIN ET AL

WAS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE PRESENTED BY THE OTHER DEFENDANTS - DID THE EVIDENCE REFLECT A PATENT OR LATENT DEFECT. =(302/PJM/VC)

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2008

GARY SHORT ET AL VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL

However, plaintiff's theory of liability is that asbestos is not a latent defect, but one that was well known in the 1960's and is the reason that Bechtel breached the GISO standards when it designed and constructed the plant. The questions regarding the Cohen Declaration will be addressed at the hearing. =(302/PJM/AY)

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2007

VINE VS BEAR VALLEY SKI COMPANY

TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT WHETHER JUMP LATENT DEFECT OR OBVIOUS DANGER. TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT WHETHER WORKER'S COMPENSATION APPLICABLE BECAUSE ACCIDENT OCCURRED AT POST SEASON PARTY. TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT RE APPLICABILITY OF LABOR CODE 3352(F). (PB)

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2002

  « first    1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.