What are Latent Defects?

Useful Resources for Latent Defects

Recent Rulings on Latent Defects

176-200 of 291 results

CITY OF CHULA VISTA VS. DOUGLAS E BARNHART INC [E-FILE]

Absent first establishing the date of substantial completion, Balfour fails to establish that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the CCP § 337.15 statute of repose. If this tentative ruling is confirmed, the Minute Order will be the final order of the court, and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2018

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY VS CAVCO INDUSTRIES INC

Similarly, nothing in the "Full Property Detail Report" establishes the home/Subject Product as "an improvement to real property" for purposes of CCP § 337.15. Absent first establishing the home/Subject Product as "an improvement to real property" Cavco fails to establish that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the CCP § 337.15 statute of repose. Uncertainty The court finds the complaint is not uncertain.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CITY OF CHULA VISTA VS. DOUGLAS E BARNHART INC [E-FILE]

Absent first establishing the date of substantial completion, Stenman fails to establish that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the CCP § 337.15 statute of repose. If this tentative ruling is confirmed, the Minute Order will be the final order of the court, and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2018

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITY OF CHULA VISTA VS. DOUGLAS E BARNHART INC [E-FILE]

Absent first establishing the date of substantial completion, Stenman fails to establish that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the CCP § 337.15 statute of repose. If this tentative ruling is confirmed, the Minute Order will be the final order of the court, and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2018

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITY OF CHULA VISTA VS. DOUGLAS E BARNHART INC [E-FILE]

Absent first establishing the date of substantial completion, Balfour fails to establish that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the CCP § 337.15 statute of repose. If this tentative ruling is confirmed, the Minute Order will be the final order of the court, and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2018

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

GLINDIA BARLEY VS EXTENDED STAY AMERICA INC.,

Rosecu contends this carpet constitutes a latent defect. (Rosecu Decl., ¶ 8.) The Court is unconvinced that the carpet posed a latent defect or that any dangerousness posed by the carpet was not open and obvious. Plaintiff and Rosecu argue Defendant should have known of the latent defect posed by the carpet and should have either repaired or replaced it. However, a latent defect is “one which is hidden and which would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection.” (Lewis v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2018

KIM LEVINE ET AL VS JANET BERSCHNEIDER ET AL

The causes of action in the complaint are: 1) negligence (general, failure to disclose latent defect, per se, failure to perform covenant to repair); 2) negligent infliction of emotional distress; 3) breach of implied warranty of habitability (common law); 4) breach of implied warranty of habitability (statutory); 5) private nuisance; 6) breach of contract. Berg and Bungalow filed a cross-complaint against Kim Levine for breach of contract, negligence, and fraud/intentional deceit.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2018

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara 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. On February 14, 2018, the Court granted certain defendants’ motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages and related allegations.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2018

MARGARET MURRAY V. ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE

., § 337.15(f).) In discussing the willful misconduct exception, the Court held that a general contractor/developer can be held liable for the willful misconduct of subcontractors even after the 10-year statutory period runs. (Id. at pp. 1285-1286.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 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. On October 5, 2017, defendants filed this opposed motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages and related allegations.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2018

KIM LEVINE ET AL VS JANET BERSCHNEIDER ET AL

The causes of action in the complaint are: 1) negligence (general, failure to disclose latent defect, per se, failure to perform covenant to repair); 2) negligent infliction of emotional distress; 3) breach of implied warranty of habitability (common law); 4) breach of implied warranty of habitability (statutory); 5) private nuisance; 6) breach of contract. Berg and Bungalow filed a cross-complaint against Kim Levine for breach of contract, negligence, and fraud/intentional deceit.

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2018

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

EBRAHIM YOUNESI ET AL VS BOB OLODORT ET AL

., supra, 38 Cal. 3d 454 [latent defect]; see also 3 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, Real Property, supra, at § 457, p. 2140. ) Wylie v. Gresch (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 412, 419-24 (bold emphasis and underlining added).

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2018

MARK MIGDAL VS. BYRON CANNON

Plaintiff argues that Defendant ACH was brought into this action after Plaintiff discovered a “latent defect.” (Opposition at 3:6-12), citing paragraph 34. That paragraph, however, alleges only that Plaintiff “determined” that the defects and damage were caused by Defendant ACH “within the past year.” A latent defect could toll the statute of limitations, whereas merely “determining negligence” late does not.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2018

KIM LEVINE ET AL VS JANET BERSCHNEIDER ET AL

The causes of action in the complaint are: 1) negligence (general, failure to disclose latent defect, per se, failure to perform covenant to repair); 2) negligent infliction of emotional distress; 3) breach of implied warranty of habitability (common law); 4) breach of implied warranty of habitability (statutory); 5) private nuisance; 6) breach of contract. Berg and Bungalow filed a cross-complaint against Kim Levine for breach of contract, negligence, and fraud/intentional deceit.

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2018

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

VENTURE VS. LB/VCC

Centex Homes (2003) 31 Cal.4th 363, 366 (CCP section 337.15 is a statute of repose; it prescribes the statutory outside date by which a suit for construction defects must be brought). Plaintiff opposes this motion on the ground that section 337.15(e) of the statute controls. Section 337.15(e) states that the 10-year limit shall not be used by way of a defense by any owner of the property at the time of the defects causing property damage.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2017

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

The California Supreme Court in Lantzy held that the 10-year limitations period of CCP § 337.15 is not equitably tolled for repairs. (Lantzy v. Centex Homes, supra, 31 Cal.4th at 373.) CCP § 337.15 is a statute of repose. (McCann v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2010) 48 Cal.4th 68, 89-90.) A statute of repose places an absolute time limit on the right to bring a civil cause of action beyond which no claim exists and, therefore, is not subject to equitable tolling. (Inco Development Corp. v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2017

HUGO HERNANDEZ ET AL VS LB VILLA PARK LLC

In contrast, a latent defect is hidden, and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection.” The Luckman Partnership, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010 184 Cal. App. 4th 30, 35. “The test to determine whether a deficiency is patent is based on the average consumer’s reasonable expectations.” Tomko Woll Grp. Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal. App. 4th 1326, 1339.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2017

SCOTT V. CEDAR FAIR, L.P.

The defendant has presented evidence that the door stop visibly protruded from the door and was not a latent defect. The defendant has established that there are no other reported injuries resulting from the Women’s Information Restroom. The defendants have presented evidence that Cedar Fair did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2017

HAPPY VALLEY VS COHEN

HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ADJUDICATION AS TO PLNTF'S COMPLAINT FILED BY KIM VAN WERT * TENTATIVE RULING: * The parties agree that Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 337.15 provides the applicable limitations period in this case. CCP section 337.15(a) says, in essence, that no action for damages resulting from a latent defect in an improvement to real property can be brought more than ten years from substantial completion of the improvement.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2017

MOHAN VS GREYSTONE HOMES [COMP

As stated above, the ten-year limitations period provided by CCP section 337.15 does not apply to the breach of express warranty cause of action, because the alleged defect in this case is not a latent defect within the meaning of CCP section 337.15(b). The Court identifies CCP sections 337, 337.1, and 338(b) as potentially providing the applicable limitations periods. As above, it matters not which of these provisions apply, as the action is not timely under any of them.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2017

MELTON VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Plaintiffs are not required to "discover and report to the seller a latent defect" within the first year of ownership. Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1310. Here, plaintiffs allege the defects existed at the time of the sale. Complt., ¶¶ 276, 280. This is sufficient for pleading purposes. Defendant contends the claim is also barred by a five-year statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for breach of warranty is four years. Comm. Code, § 2725; Krieger v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MELTON VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Plaintiffs are not required to "discover and report to the seller a latent defect" within the first year of ownership. Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1310. Here, plaintiffs allege the defects existed at the time of the sale. Complt., ¶¶ 276, 280. This is sufficient for pleading purposes. Defendant contends the claim is also barred by a five-year statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for breach of warranty is four years. Comm. Code, § 2725; Krieger v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GERMAN HERRERA ROMERO VS BAJA RANCH SUPERMARKETS-E T FOOD IN

Moreover, under the reasoning of Swinerton and Stultz discussed above, it is plain that an important part of the analysis is whether the defect in the shopping cart retention system – the “locking” up of the wheels – is a patent or latent defect. If it is a latent defect, did E&T have sufficient information to discover the defect at the time of its acceptance? If it did not, Gatekeeper may be liable for Plaintiff’s injuries.

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2017

JOSEPH ROSE VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

He also argued that all the repair orders demonstrated that there was a latent defect. In response to this assertion regarding the first factor, BMW argued that only an expert could testify as to whether the M3 “was of the same quality as those generally acceptable in the trade” and Rose did not provide any such expert testimony.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2017

ROMERO VS. DONAHUE SCHRIBER RE

This is contrasted with a latent defect, one which is hidden and which would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. [Citations.]” ’ [Citations.]” (Geertz v. Ausonio (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1367.) When determining whether a defect is patent or latent an objective person test is used. (Geertz, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1370 and fn. 3; see also Tomko Woll Group Architects v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1339, fn. 6.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2017

  « 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.