What are Latent Defects?

Useful Resources for Latent Defects

Recent Rulings on Latent Defects

101-125 of 291 results

ON SEACOAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. 1365 SEACOAST LLC [E-FILE]

The next argument Huntamer raises is based on the 10-year statute of repose of CCP § 337.15.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ON SEACOAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. 1365 SEACOAST LLC [E-FILE]

The next argument Huntamer raises is based on the 10-year statute of repose of CCP § 337.15.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ON SEACOAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. 1365 SEACOAST LLC [E-FILE]

The next argument Huntamer raises is based on the 10-year statute of repose of CCP § 337.15.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ON SEACOAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. 1365 SEACOAST LLC [E-FILE]

The next argument Huntamer raises is based on the 10-year statute of repose of CCP § 337.15.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ON SEACOAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. 1365 SEACOAST LLC [E-FILE]

The next argument Huntamer raises is based on the 10-year statute of repose of CCP § 337.15.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ON SEACOAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. 1365 SEACOAST LLC [E-FILE]

The next argument Huntamer raises is based on the 10-year statute of repose of CCP § 337.15.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ON SEACOAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. 1365 SEACOAST LLC [E-FILE]

The next argument Huntamer raises is based on the 10-year statute of repose of CCP § 337.15.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ON SEACOAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. 1365 SEACOAST LLC [E-FILE]

The next argument Huntamer raises is based on the 10-year statute of repose of CCP § 337.15.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

KING, ANNA P. VS. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, cited by plaintiff, does not support the argument that plaintiff’s claim accrued only upon discovery of the latent defect. In Mexia, the Court of Appeal held that the Song-Beverly Act did not bar an action for breach of implied warranty based upon a latent condition not discovered by the consumer and reported to the seller within the duration period. Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1309.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

THE PLAZA-IRVINE OWNERS ASSOCIATION V. JWC CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff argues that either Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1 (four years for patent defects) or section 337.15 (ten years for latent defects) applies. The Court need not at this time rule on the issue of what statute of limitations applies to the claims alleged in the Complaint. The work is alleged to have continued through June of 2016. (Complaint, ¶ 25.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2019

PARK V. KIM, ET AL.

The gravamen of the FAC sounds in fraud, not as a latent defect. Section 337.15 simply is inapplicable. The action is not time-barred as Plaintiff has adequately pleaded facts constituting delayed discovery. Defendants alternatively argue that the FAC is time-barred by Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (d), or section 339. Defendants are correct that section 338, subdivision (d) applies, as the gravamen of the FAC is “an action for relief on the ground of fraud.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2019

RAQUEL CONDON V. BRADLEY FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges six causes of action against Defendant: (1) General Negligence; (2) Negligent Failure to Disclose Latent Defect; (3) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability (Common Law); (4) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability (Statutory); (5) Private Nuisance; and (6) Breach of Contract. Plaintiff’s action arises out of her residency in a sorority house for which she alleges Defendant acted as a master tenant/landlord.

  • Hearing

    Jan 02, 2019

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 [*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

    Dec 24, 2018

SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC VS CITY OF ESCONDIDO

The Court notes that it is not able to determine whether the complaint is time barred by CCP § 337.15 based on the current allegations and according to the standards set forth in CCP § 452. This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing at 10:30 a.m. on Friday, December 21, 2018. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court as of December 21, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC VS CITY OF ESCONDIDO

The Court notes that it is not able to determine whether the complaint is time barred by CCP § 337.15 based on the current allegations and according to the standards set forth in CCP § 452. This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing at 10:30 a.m. on Friday, December 21, 2018. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court as of December 21, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HEDSTROM V. CAP

(“Westcare defendants”) remove Code of Civil Procedure sections 337, 337.1, 337.15, and 339.1 They add sections 312, 316, 317, 340.1, 340.2, 340.3 and 343. No reason for these changes appears in the motion. Sections 312 and 343 are general statements.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MONDE OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS NINTH AVENUE JOINT VENTURE LP [E-FILE]

(d) Sections 337.15 and 337.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to actions under this title.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MONDE OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS NINTH AVENUE JOINT VENTURE LP [E-FILE]

(d) Sections 337.15 and 337.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to actions under this title.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

RYAN BEDARD VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

The Ninth Circuit recently settled the dispute among the District Courts and instructed that federal courts must follow the Mexia rule because there is no convincing evidence that the California Supreme Court would decide the latent defect discovery issue presented in Mexia differently. (Daniel, supra, 806 F.3d at 1223.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2018

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

    Dec 05, 2018

ARORA VS. NORMAN SCHEEL STRUCTURAL

Plaintiffs later filed a Certificate of Merit based on a consultation with an architect, but that was not until June 2018, after the 60 days allowed by CCP § 411.35 (b)(2) and after expiration of the ten-year statute of repose set forth in CCP § 337.15. (See Curtis Engineering Corp. v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2018

CRYSTAL R. KERRIGAN, ET AL. V. DAVID W. GERRITY, ET AL.

Van Hirtum challenges plaintiffs’ first cause of action for negligence (four counts – general negligence, negligent failure to disclose latent defect, negligence per se, and negligent failure to perform covenant to repair) on the ground that Van Hirtum did not owe a duty to plaintiffs. The case law, however, does not support defendant’s position In J’Aire Corporation v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2018

FALQUAY VS. DAYANI CONSTRUCTION

However, section 337.15 imposes an absolute 10-year bar, based on the date of "substantial completion," regardless of discovery. The interplay between these statutes sets up a two-step process: (1) actions for a latent defect must be filed within three years (§ 337) or four years (§ 338) of discovery, but (2) in any event must be filed within ten years (§ 337.15) of substantial completion. (North Coast Business Park v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FALQUAY VS. DAYANI CONSTRUCTION

However, section 337.15 imposes an absolute 10-year bar, based on the date of "substantial completion," regardless of discovery. The interplay between these statutes sets up a two-step process: (1) actions for a latent defect must be filed within three years (§ 337) or four years (§ 338) of discovery, but (2) in any event must be filed within ten years (§ 337.15) of substantial completion. (North Coast Business Park v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RYAN KAUFMAN VS APEEL TECHNOLOGY INC

MacElhenny, Levy & Company (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1684, 1689, the court specifically recognized that a vendor of real property may be liable for a latent defect if (1) the vendor concealed or failed to disclose the condition which it knows about or has reason to know about, (2) the condition involves an unreasonable risk of injury that the vendor understands or should realize, (3) the condition is unknown to the vendee, and (4) the vendor has no reason to believe that the vendee will discover the condition.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2018

  « 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.