What are Latent Defects?

Useful Resources for Latent Defects

Recent Rulings on Latent Defects

201-225 of 291 results

WAGER V. K. HOVNANIAN COMPANIES OF CA INC

Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15 “does not apply to claims for personal injuries.” (Geertz v. Ausonio (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1366, fn. 1.) Special Demurrer The special demurrer for uncertainty as to the first cause of action (breach of contract) is overruled. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f)). “A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2017

STACIE STAGGS, ET AL. V. MERIDIAN GROUP REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.

The causes of action are: 1) negligence (general negligence, negligent failure to disclose latent defect, negligence per se, and negligent 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, and 6) breach of contract. On June 23, 2016, Hepp cross-complained against Meridian. On June 24, 2016, Meridian cross-complained against Hepp.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2017

JEROME CHRISTENSEN VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

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

    Aug 09, 2017

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

    Jul 21, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LE GRAND MAISON VS. COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE COMPANY

Specifically, in this motion Palazzo argues that LGM’s 13th cause of action for negligence is barred by the 10-year statute of repose set forth in CCP § 337.15 which provides, in relevant part, as follows: (a) No action may be brought to recover damages from any person, or the surety of a person, who develops real property or performs or furnishes the design, specifications, surveying, planning, supervision, testing, or observation of construction or construction of an improvement to real property more than

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2017

EUROPEAN GROVE AT FIG GARDEN NORTH HOMEOWNERSASSOCIATION V. WATHEN-CASTANOS, INC., GRAHAM CONCRETECONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND CEMEX, INC.

[CCP § 337.15(a)(1), (2)] “Latent deficiency” means a deficiency that is not apparent by reasonable inspection. [CCP § 337.15(b)] When a latent defect is discovered, the action must be filed within 3 years (CCP § 338(b)) or 4 years (CCP §§ 337(1)) after discovery. [El Escorial Owners' Ass'n v. DLC Plastering, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1356; A & B Painting & Dry-wall, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Bohannon Develop.

  • Hearing

    Jul 05, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MARIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE VS. MARCY WONG

The attorney filed a declaration, testifying that evidence from destructive testing indicated that the materials supplied by Sialic caused the latent defect, not a structural design defect as proposed by the City. The trial court dismissed the Willdan’s cross-complaint on the basis of the good faith settlement between the City and Sialic. Willdan appealed.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2017

  • Judge Ed Weil
  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MARIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE VS. MARCY WONG

The attorney filed a declaration, testifying that evidence from destructive testing indicated that the materials supplied by Sialic caused the latent defect, not a structural design defect as proposed by the City. The trial court dismissed the Willdan’s cross-complaint on the basis of the good faith settlement between the City and Sialic. Willdan appealed.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2017

  • Judge Ed Weil
  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

DEREK MOSTERO VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL

In Mexia, the manufacturer of a boat with a latent defect argued that because the boat was used for its ordinary purpose for two years after its purchase, the defect did not violate the implied warranty. (supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 1307.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2017

AIR WING LLC VS. ONE PIPER RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

Waldo brings this motion arguing that the Negligence cause of action against Waldo is barred by the CCP § 337.15 10-year statute of repose.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIR WING LLC VS. ONE PIPER RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

Waldo brings this motion arguing that the Negligence cause of action against Waldo is barred by the CCP § 337.15 10-year statute of repose.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIR WING LLC VS. ONE PIPER RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

Waldo brings this motion arguing that the Negligence cause of action against Waldo is barred by the CCP § 337.15 10-year statute of repose.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIR WING LLC VS. ONE PIPER RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

Nielsen Construction Co., supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at p. 27 [drainage problem that caused building slab to crack was a latent defect]; Geertz, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1371-1372 [flooded deck was manifestation of a drainage defect]; Baker v. Walker & Walker, Inc., supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at pp. 759-763 [faulty heating and air conditioning system was a latent defect although its effects were obvious]; cf.

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIR WING LLC VS. ONE PIPER RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

McDonald brings this motion arguing that all of Plaintiffs' causes of action against McDonald are barred by the CCP § 337.15 10-year statute of repose.

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIR WING LLC VS. ONE PIPER RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

Nielsen Construction Co., supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at p. 27 [drainage problem that caused building slab to crack was a latent defect]; Geertz, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1371-1372 [flooded deck was manifestation of a drainage defect]; Baker v. Walker & Walker, Inc., supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at pp. 759-763 [faulty heating and air conditioning system was a latent defect although its effects were obvious]; cf.

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIR WING LLC VS. ONE PIPER RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

McDonald brings this motion arguing that all of Plaintiffs' causes of action against McDonald are barred by the CCP § 337.15 10-year statute of repose.

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIR WING LLC VS. ONE PIPER RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

McDonald brings this motion arguing that all of Plaintiffs' causes of action against McDonald are barred by the CCP § 337.15 10-year statute of repose.

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIR WING LLC VS. ONE PIPER RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

McDonald brings this motion arguing that all of Plaintiffs' causes of action against McDonald are barred by the CCP § 337.15 10-year statute of repose.

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIR WING LLC VS. ONE PIPER RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

Nielsen Construction Co., supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at p. 27 [drainage problem that caused building slab to crack was a latent defect]; Geertz, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1371-1372 [flooded deck was manifestation of a drainage defect]; Baker v. Walker & Walker, Inc., supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at pp. 759-763 [faulty heating and air conditioning system was a latent defect although its effects were obvious]; cf.

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIR WING LLC VS. ONE PIPER RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

Nielsen Construction Co., supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at p. 27 [drainage problem that caused building slab to crack was a latent defect]; Geertz, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1371-1372 [flooded deck was manifestation of a drainage defect]; Baker v. Walker & Walker, Inc., supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at pp. 759-763 [faulty heating and air conditioning system was a latent defect although its effects were obvious]; cf.

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIR WING LLC VS. ONE PIPER RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

Nielsen Construction Co., supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at p. 27 [drainage problem that caused building slab to crack was a latent defect]; Geertz, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1371-1372 [flooded deck was manifestation of a drainage defect]; Baker v. Walker & Walker, Inc., supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at pp. 759-763 [faulty heating and air conditioning system was a latent defect although its effects were obvious]; cf.

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIR WING LLC VS. ONE PIPER RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

McDonald brings this motion arguing that all of Plaintiffs' causes of action against McDonald are barred by the CCP § 337.15 10-year statute of repose.

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LUZ M JANSKY VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL

“The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale. Indeed, ‘[u]ndisclosed latent defects . . . are the very evil that the implied warranty of merchantability was designed to remedy.’ ” (Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1304-1305.)

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2017

LUZ M JANSKY VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL

“The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale. Indeed, ‘[u]ndisclosed latent defects . . . are the very evil that the implied warranty of merchantability was designed to remedy.’ ” (Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1304-1305.)

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2017

CHARLES VASILE VS PLANTATION SHUTTER CO INC ET AL

However, the American Co. answer specifically states: “Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by any and all applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 335 through 349.4, inclusive, California Business & Professions Code §7071.11, California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 337.1, 337.15, 337(1), 338, 339 and 340, et seq.” Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company’s reliance on CCP §337(1) meets the pleading requirement in CCP §458.

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  « 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.