What are Latent Defects?

Useful Resources for Latent Defects

Recent Rulings on Latent Defects

126-150 of 289 results

ANABELL RUIZ NUNEZ VS FCA US LLC ET AL

Rinker Boat Co (2009)174 Cal.App.4th 1297 for the proposition that the duration provision provides implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Act with a limited prospective existence beyond the date of delivery, but there is nothing that requires the purchaser to discover and report to the seller a latent defect within that time period. (Id. at 1310-1311.) Mexia makes clear that the implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of the sale. (Id. at 1304.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2018

TERRANCE PONCHAK, ET AL. VS RICARDO SERRANO, ET AL.

In opposition, Plaintiffs contend that because the general negligence claim arises from the construction defect created by Defendant, the ten-year statute of limitations of CCP § 337.15(a) applies. (Id.) The Court agrees and finds Section 337.15(a) to be applicable here—not Section 338. Even if there is a dispute over which of the above statutes applies, that is not sufficient to sustain the Demurrer based on a statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BUSTOS V FORD MOTOR CO.

There is nothing that suggests a requirement that the purchaser discover and report to the seller a latent defect within that time period.” (Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc., (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 1297, 1310) Plaintiff alleges that upon discovery of the Vehicle’s nonconformities he took reasonable steps to notify Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2018

YU XIA LIN VS ACT INK TATTOO

The Supreme Court held that this was insufficient to allege equitable estoppel, explaining: “[T]he complaint is devoid of any indication that defendants' conduct actually and reasonably induced plaintiffs to forbear suing within the 10–year period of section 337.15. There is no suggestion that the repair attempts alleged, if successful, would have obviated the need for suit.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SERGIO PROA 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. (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

    Oct 22, 2018

QF CIRCA 37 LLC VS WERMERS MULTI-FAMILY CORP

Moreover, the issue is not whether the water heaters had a latent defect, but whether the defect manifested itself during the warranty period. Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that the 155 water heaters exhibited any defects prior to July 2018. Accordingly, A.O. Smith is entitled to summary adjudication of the 8th and 9th causes of action with respect to the 155 water heaters identified in Syler's Exhibit B.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

QF CIRCA 37 LLC VS WERMERS MULTI-FAMILY CORP

Moreover, the issue is not whether the water heaters had a latent defect, but whether the defect manifested itself during the warranty period. Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that the 155 water heaters exhibited any defects prior to July 2018. Accordingly, A.O. Smith is entitled to summary adjudication of the 8th and 9th causes of action with respect to the 155 water heaters identified in Syler's Exhibit B.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

QF CIRCA 37 LLC VS WERMERS MULTI-FAMILY CORP

Moreover, the issue is not whether the water heaters had a latent defect, but whether the defect manifested itself during the warranty period. Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that the 155 water heaters exhibited any defects prior to July 2018. Accordingly, A.O. Smith is entitled to summary adjudication of the 8th and 9th causes of action with respect to the 155 water heaters identified in Syler's Exhibit B.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RENAISSANCE RESIDENTIAL VS. STERLING PROPERTIES

(CCP § 337.15.) Plaintiffs claim the defects are latent. They cite paragraphs 17-19 of the Complaint. However, those paragraphs do not allege this. All paragraph 17 alleges is that plaintiffs did not discover the defects until after they acquired the Property. It does not allege when plaintiffs acquired the Property or what about the defects makes them latent rather than patent.

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

JAMES P WERSCHING TRUSTEE OF THE SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA PROPERTY TRUST DATED OCTOBER 21 2008 VS R MARTY SMITH [E-FILE]

Addressing the merits of TSPM's CC § 941 motion, the court not persuaded by TSPM's argument that CC § 941 and CCP § 337.15 should be interpreted the same way with respect to the term substantial completion. TSPM's argument is contrary to the express language of CC § 941(d) ["Sections 337.15 and 337.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to actions under this title"]. TSPM provides no authority espousing TSPM's interpretation of CC § 941.

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JAMES P WERSCHING TRUSTEE OF THE SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA PROPERTY TRUST DATED OCTOBER 21 2008 VS R MARTY SMITH [E-FILE]

Addressing the merits of TSPM's CC § 941 motion, the court not persuaded by TSPM's argument that CC § 941 and CCP § 337.15 should be interpreted the same way with respect to the term substantial completion. TSPM's argument is contrary to the express language of CC § 941(d) ["Sections 337.15 and 337.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to actions under this title"]. TSPM provides no authority espousing TSPM's interpretation of CC § 941.

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LEVENT ANIK VS AVALON BAY COMMUNITIES INC ET AL

IRM Corp. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 454, which essentially provided a claim against a landlord or hotel proprietor for any latent defect in the premises which existed at the commencement of a lease. In Peterson, the Court held that strict product liability could not be imposed on a landlord/hotel operator which purchased a bathtub from a third party manufacturer.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2018

JAMES DUCLAIR VS. VANGUARD PROPERTIES INC. ET AL

Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend for the remaining Plaintiffs to allege: (1) facts in support of each cause of action as to each Plaintiff with requisite specificity as is required for fraud-based causes of action; (2) any allegations made against Vanguard in its separate capacities (e.g. developer, seller's agent, buyer's agent) to be clearly and separately made; (3) factual allegations regarding delayed discovery by each Plaintiff as to each alleged latent defect to be clearly made. =(501/REQ)

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2018

ANABELL RUIZ NUNEZ VS FCA US LLC ET AL

Rinker Boat Co (2009)174 Cal.App.4th 1297 for the proposition that the duration provision provides implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Act with a limited prospective existence beyond the date of delivery, but there is nothing that requires the purchaser to discover and report to the seller a latent defect within that time period. (Id at 1310-1311.) Mexia makes clear that the implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of the sale. (Id. at 1304.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2018

ANABELL RUIZ NUNEZ VS FCA US LLC ET AL

Rinker Boat Co (2009)174 Cal.App.4th 1297 for the proposition that the duration provision provides implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Act with a limited prospective existence beyond the date of delivery, but there is nothing that requires the purchaser to discover and report to the seller a latent defect within that time period. (Id. at 1310-1311.) Mexia makes clear that the implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of the sale. (Id. at 1304.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2018

MATA V. JOHNSTONE CONTRACTING, INC., ET AL.

Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57and held that a lessor of residential property “is strictly liable in tort for injuries resulting from a latent defect in the premises when the defect existed at the time the premises were let....” (Becker v. IRM Corp., supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 464.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2018

LINDA FITTON VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

. … [T]hese allegations were sufficient to overcome a demurrer based on the statute of limitations contained in section 337.15.” We disagree.

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2018

MILLER VS. STUBER

(CCP § 337.15 (a).) “Latent deficiency” means a deficiency which is not apparent by reasonable inspection. (CCP ¶ 337.15 (b).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2018

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

    Aug 23, 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

    Aug 23, 2018

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

260 CLARA STREET HOA, A CALIFORNIA DOMESTIC VS. RICHARD HART ET AL

337.15. The motion is DENIED. Triable issues of fact exist as to whether defendants engaged in willful misconduct. (See CCP ?337.15(f); Acosta v. Glenfed Development Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1278.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2018

COLBY LAM VS. ANDREW KENNY ET AL

Demurrer based on CCP 337.15 is overruled. Moving party failed to show that this statute is applicable to personal injury claims. To the extent moving party attempts to advance a new argument regarding 2-year statute of limitations in reply (not mentioned in the Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer or Points and Authorities in Support of Demurrer), such argument is untimely and improper.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2018

RIVER’S SIDE AT WASHINGTON SQUARE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. THIRD

., § 337.15; El Escorial Owners’ Ass’n v. DLC Plastering, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal App.4th 1337, 1358; FAC, ¶¶ 1-48, 54-62.) Defendants’ demurrer to the fifth cause of action for intentional/negligent nondisclosure is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); (Lazar v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.) If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately.

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2018

  • Judge

    Assigned Judge

  • County

    Yolo County, CA

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

    Jun 19, 2018

MARIA FRESCAS ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Demurrer is OVERULED. 5th – 7th Affirmative Defenses Defendant contends Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations per CCP 337.1, 337.15, and 338. Plaintiffs may conduct discovery to obtain information regarding why their claims are barred under these code sections. Demurrer is OVERULED. 8th Affirmative Defense Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs lack standing.

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2018

  • 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.