What are Latent Defects?

Useful Resources for Latent Defects

Recent Rulings on Latent Defects

ALEXANDER WEINBERGER VS MCLAREN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1304 [“The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale.”].) And without evidence of when, if ever, ownership of the Subject Vehicle was transferred, there is a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the express warranty was breached before or after the purported transfer.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

CITY PARK AT SUNNYVALE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION V. TOLL BROS., INC., ET AL.

The court does not reach Fortifiber’s additional argument that the claims 3 against Fortifiber are barred by the 10-year statute of repose in Code of Civil Procedure section 4 337.15 for latent construction defects. 12 Public access to telephonic hearings is available on a listen-only line by calling 866-434-5269 13 (access code 6433515). 14 State and local rules prohibit recording of court proceedings without a court order.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

PAUL WARGO, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

“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.’ 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…’ The Song–Beverly Act does not include its own statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

LARSON VS. ACCENT AUTOMATED GATES, INC.

The question of whether the absence of a hard stop was a patent or latent defect is a triable issue of fact. The proper limitation period cannot be determined as a matter of law. Because the complete bar of the statute of repose has not been shown, summary judgment must be denied. Defendant/Cross-Defendant Saddleback Valley Ornamental Iron, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of the 1st cause of action for Negligence is DENIED. Defendant has not met its burden under CCP §437(p)(2).

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

ERICK ALFRED RUBALCAVA, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

“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.’ 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…’ The Song–Beverly Act does not include its own statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

NEDA NOURANI VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

“The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale.” Id. at pp. 1304–1305.) A defect need not manifest within the first year of sale to be actionable. Rather, an implied warranty claim can be actionable where a defect exists at the time of sale, even if the defect later manifests. (Ibid.) The parties do not dispute that the applicable statute of limitations is four years as set forth in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

RAUL VARGAS, JR. VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION

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. (Id. at p.1305.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHRISTINE DIEP VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF 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

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

In interpreting the trial court’s ruling on defendants’ demurrers to the breach of implied warranty cause of action, the Court of Appeal noted that “The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale.” (Id. at 1304.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

STEVEN BURCH VS RUBICON B HACIENDA LLC ET AL

Plaintiff has not made a motion to amend to add a theory of liability against Rubicon for knowing of a concealed or latent defect and failing to warn Smart Grid of such. The pleadings serve as an outer measure of materiality, and the motion may not be granted or denied based on issues not raised in the pleadings. (Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 95, 98.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

ALLEN BENNETT, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

The court further noted that goods with a latent defect may not measure up to the description given by the purchaser and, if the latent defect were known, may not have been salable “as goods of the general kind which were described or supposed to be when bought.” Id. The fact that a vehicle with a hidden latent defect may operate, even for a period of years, does not automatically render the vehicle merchantable as described by the manufacturer. See id.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

MARIA ROA, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale. (Id.) 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. (Id. at 1305.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NIA LOWE CASSELMAN 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

    Nov 09, 2020

MANUEL CARRILLO, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

While, “[t]he implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale[,]” (Mexia, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p.1304), the statute of limitations does not run from discovery.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RAYMOND SAFARIAN VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

The court further noted that goods with a latent defect may not measure up to the description given by the purchaser and, if the latent defect were known, may not have been salable “as goods of the general kind which were described or supposed to be when bought.” Id. It is not “nonsensical” for an automobile to have a latent defect which renders the vehicle unmerchantable at the time of sale, but is not discovered until after the warranty period has expired.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

JAMES VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA

The implied warranty may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale. (Id. at pp. 1304-05.) The crucial question, then, is when James discovered a defect that caused the Rogue to not conform. (Id. at p. 1308.) This is a fact question that almost always must be resolved by a finder of fact, rather than the Court on demurrer. (Id.) In addition, to sustain a demurrer on statute of limitations grounds, the Court must find that the defect appears conclusively on the face of the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE CORPORATION VS LTD CONSTRUCTION

Wear and tear, gradual deterioration, any quality in the property that causes it to damage or destroy itself, hidden or latent defect, rust, wet or dry rot, mold, dampness of atmosphere, freezing or extremes of temperature, insects, vermin, moths, rodents, or worms” (“Mold Exclusion”). (UMF 25, 41, 57, 75, 117.) The policy also contains a Faulty Workmanship Exclusion: “We will not pay for ‘loss’ caused by or resulting from any of the following.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE CORPORATION VS LTD CONSTRUCTION

Wear and tear, gradual deterioration, any quality in the property that causes it to damage or destroy itself, hidden or latent defect, rust, wet or dry rot, mold, dampness of atmosphere, freezing or extremes of temperature, insects, vermin, moths, rodents, or worms” (“Mold Exclusion”). (UMF 8.) Another exclusion states, “We will not pay for a ‘loss’ caused by or resulting from . . . Rain, . . . whether driven by wind or not. But we will pay for ‘loss’ . . .

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KUCICH VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC

., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1304, the court acknowledged section 1791.1, but held “[t]he implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale.” Mexia sued for breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly due to a latent defect, i.e. his boat engine corroded. (Id. at 1301-1302.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

MARK A. CAZARES, ET AL. 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. . . . Indeed, “[u]ndisclosed latent defects … are the very evil that the implied warranty of merchantability was designed to remedy.” . . .

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

HAZEL MENDEZ, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

While, “[t]he implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale[,]” (Mexia, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p.1304), the statute of limitations does not run from discovery.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SANGJOON JAY LEE, , AS TRUSTEE OF THE SANGJOON AND JOONGWHA LEE LIVING TRUST DATED APRIL 24 2008, ET AL. VS PAUL MCGRATH, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

If a latent defect is discovered, an action must be filed within three years (§ 338) or four years (§ 337) of discovery, but in any event must be filed within ten years (§ 337.15) of substantial completion. … ‘[S]ection 337.15 imposes an absolute 10-year bar, based on the date of ‘substantial completion,’ regardless of discovery.’” Id. at 355 (internal citations omitted).

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

NUTSIRI KIKKUL VS REDONDO BEACH HOSPITALITY COMPANY LLC ET A

She argues that that her vehicle had a latent defect, which renders her vehicle unmerchantable. (Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1305 [In case of latent defects, product is rendered unmerchantable, and warranty of merchantability is breached by existence of unseen defect, not by its subsequent discovery].) Though that may be true, that does not address Defendant’s argument, that Plaintiff purchased the car from another entity.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

LINDA MARIE DE LA RIVA 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 [the duration period].” (Id.) Defendant posits that plaintiff’s claims accrued on November 15, 2015 when plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle. Therefore, defendant argues that because plaintiff did not file this complaint until April 20, 2020, her Song-Beverly claims fall outside the four-year statute of limitations by about five months.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

FRANKEL VS TESORO

In addition to the foregoing, the court also finds that the second and third causes of action are subject to California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") § 337.15's 10-year statute of limitations. CCP § 337.15 provides that the 10-year limitations period "shall commence upon substantial completion of the improvement . . . ." Cal. Code Civ. P. § 337.15(g). Here, the Complaint makes clear that Defendants completed the survey and boundary adjustment work on or about April 30, 2004. See the Complaint at ¶ 15.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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.