What are Latent Defects?

Useful Resources for Latent Defects

Recent Rulings on Latent Defects

76-100 of 291 results

MARK ELLENSOHN VS CITY OF BURBANK ET AL

This is sufficient to raise triable issues of material fact with respect to whether there was a latent defect in HSS’s work which contributed to the June accident. The motion accordingly is denied.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2019

JOSE G VILLAGRANA VS SCOTTYS GAS STATION

By contrast, a latent defect is one which is hidden and which would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. (Ibid.) Plaintiff argues the crack was a concealed hazard. Plaintiff says that he did not see the crack when he was on the scaffold but felt it when the scaffolding wheel went over it and tipped, and Castillo says he did not see the crack in his initial inspection but identified it after the accident. (Villagrana Decl., ¶ 9; Villagrana Decl. at 62:25-63:3; Castillo Decl., ¶ 13.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

GIANT DEVELOPMENT VS. J.H. FITZMAURICE

CCP 337.15(c). Defendant Luk has not established that plaintiff JHF’s Complaint and DOE amendment are barred by the 10-year statute of limitations set by Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15, subdivision (a). Accordingly, the Court need not consider whether plaintiff’s complaint is functionally serving as a cross-complaint, and whether the extension of the statute of limitations beyond 10 years for construction defect cross-complaints applies. (See, Code Civ. Proc., § 337.15, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2019

ARASH ALBORZI, M.D., ET AL. VS UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Instead, Mexia holds that a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability claim under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act may be based upon a latent defect so long as the latent defect is present no later than 1 year after the purchase of the product. However, the court in Mexia held that “[t]here is nothing that suggests a requirement that the purchaser discovers and reports to the seller a latent defect within that time period.” (Mexia, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at 1310.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 05, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MICHAEL K NASSAR VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION

This system’s "potential" failure outside of the warranty period due to a latent defect is insufficient to support Plaintiff’s claim that he has been damaged by any conduct on the part of Defendant Volkswagen.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BURR VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA RE: MOTION TO/FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BY VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC

That is, there is no actionable defect alleged only a potential for a latent defect that has not yet manifested itself. Additionally, Plaintiffs have not alleged damages in connection with their fraud claims.

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2019

FALLGREN V. JELLY BELLY CANDY COMPANY

The operator of the cocktail lounge argued that the accident was caused by a latent defect in a pin holding the stool to a pedestal and that the evidence of negligence was insufficient. But there were other theories as to what might have caused the accident, and the jury was not obliged to accept the hypothesis advanced by the defendant. “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur concerns a type of circumstantial evidence upon which plaintiff may rely to discharge his burden of proving defendant's negligence.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2019

KEMPER INDEPENDENCE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. OETIKER INC

(d) [Code of Civil Procedure §§ 337.15 and 337.1] do not apply to actions under this title.

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

DOUGLAS PORTER ET AL VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

The foregoing principles expressed in Mexia lead to the conclusion that the effect of the Song-Beverly implied warranty duration for a minimum of 60 days to a maximum of one year is that if a latent defect exists at any point during that 60-day to one-year period, as long as a lawsuit is filed within the 4-year statute of limitations period which accrues when the defect comes into existence—then the action for breach of implied warranty is timely, regardless of whether the latent defect was discovered after

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2019

LEACH V. 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.” (Id., at p. 1310.) Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 42 states, “ . “A demurrer based on a statute of limitations will not lie where the action may be, but is not necessarily, barred. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    May 07, 2019

KATHLEEN TESSALONE VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

In particular, 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. (Mexia, (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th at 1305 [emphasis added.].) Thus, the subject vehicle was unmerchantable when it was purchased, and the implied warranty was breached when Plaintiff purchased the vehicle.

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2019

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CORALEE BEVERIDGE, ET AL. V. CITY OF GOLETA, ET AL.

Applicability of CCP § 337.15: Plaintiff argues that CCP § 337.15 does not apply because of subdivision (e), which reads: “The limitation prescribed by this section shall not be asserted by way of defense by any person in actual possession or the control, as owner, tenant or otherwise, of such an improvement, at the time any deficiency in the improvement constitutes the proximate cause for which it is proposed to bring an action.”

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2019

PETER QUIJANO VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METRO TRANS AUTHORITY ET

Based on this evidence, SCRRA argues it retained no control of the work site, did not affirmatively contribute to Plaintiff’s injuries, and did not fail to disclose a concealed or latent defect (the presence of wheel wax). SCRRA has met its initial burden of showing Plaintiff’s action is barred by the Privette doctrine. It is undisputed Bombardier was hired as an independent contractor of Defendant, and that Plaintiff was injured while working in the course of his employment for Bombardier.

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHRISTIAN GRIFFIN VS BLACK MOUNTAIN RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

Plaintiffs' demurrer based on failure to plead subsections of CCP § 337.1 and 337.15 and CC § 896, et seq." is sustained. Plaintiffs' demurrer based on specificity is overruled for the same reasons stated below. Affirmative Defense No. 10: Sustained. This affirmative defense is pled as follows: TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 11.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CAMERON VS. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE

Discussion 1st Cause of Action for Breach of Contract State Farm argues that damage to the "roof deck" is not covered because the policy excludes coverage for loss caused by wear and tear, deterioration, latent defect, or faulty construction or maintenance. UMF 6.

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SAYRA ASRAR, ET AL. VS KIA MOTOR 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. (See Moore v. Hubbard & Johnson 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

    Apr 03, 2019

WILLIAM WRIGHT VS CITY OF LONG BEACH ET AL

CJ points out that LBT has its own MSJ pending in which it argues that neither LBT nor CJ created a patent or latent defect. Given the totality of these circumstances, the court finds that the settlement is fair and within the ballpark. The theory of liability overlooks that a contractor to a Charter City such as Long Beach has its duties strictly defined by the contract. Unless the scope of work included painting curbs, there would be no duty to do so.

  • Hearing

    Mar 19, 2019

AURELIO V HOCHLER

Plaintiff’s action is bared by the 10-yea statute of limitations for claims of latent defects (CCP §337.15). The allegations of the Firs Amended Complaint are insufficient to establish an equitable estoppel The 10-year statute of limitations for latent defects commenced at the latest in Januar 2004. This is a “generous but firm cut-off date for latent-defects suits”. Lantzy v Centex Home (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 363, 369.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2019

CORALEE BEVERIDGE, ET AL. V. CITY OF GOLETA, ET AL.

But the case was decided solely on the ground of the 10-year statute of repose n in CCP § 337.15. Id. at 145. Similarly, the court in Gaggero v. County of San Diego, 124 Cal.App.4th 609 (2004), held that CCP § 337.15 “required any action based on alleged defects in the design, construction or operation of the landfill be brought within 10 years after the county ceased ownership and operation of the landfill.” Id. at 613.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2019

SHANNON COLHOUN VS LOU CHAR FULLER PROPERTY LLC ET AL

¿ On August 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for (1) negligence, (2) latent defect, (3) negligent repair, (4) National Electric Code sections 300.10, 300.12, 680, et seq., (5) Los Angeles Municipal Code sections 91.8104.7 and 91.804.8, et seq., (6) Los Angeles Electrical Code sections 93.0104, 93.0201, 930304, and 93.0314, and (7) Health and Safety Code section 17920.3.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2019

MARIO HIDALGO, ET AL. V. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO., ET AL.

Owner shall not be liable for any latent defect in the leased premises or in the building of which they form a part. All property of Tenant kept or stored on the lease premises shall be so kept or stored at the risk of Tenant only and Tenant shall hold Owner harmless from any claims by Tenant’s insurance carriers, unless such damage shall be caused by the willful act or gross neglect of the Owner, and through no fault of Tenant.”

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2019

MANWAH HO VS. REEF REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC

"A patent defect can be discovered by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, whereas a latent defect is hidden and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection." (Delon Hampton & Associates, Chartered v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 250, 255.) Whether a condition is a patent defect may be decided as a matter of law. (See Neiman v. Leo A. Daly Co. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 962, 970.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JAIME LOPEZ 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

    Feb 26, 2019

PAINTER, JOHN VS. AMIN, SEAN A

Specifically, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate facts establishing that Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged latent defect on the premises. Moreover, the law does not support Plaintiffs’ theory that notice was imputed to Defendant in connection with alleged defects in the original design and/or construction of the premises under the circumstances in this case. (RSB Vineyards, LLC v. Orsi (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1089.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2019

NOUGDENG SAVENGRITH ET AL VS CITY OF POMONA ET AL

This is contrasted with a latent defect, one which is hidden and which would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection.” (Wagner v. State of California (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 922, 927.) “The test used to determine whether a deficiency is patent is not a subjective one, applied to each individual user; rather, it is an objective test based on the reasonable expectations of the average consumer.” (Mattingly v. Anthony Industries, Inc. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 506, 511.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  « first    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.