California Laws|Section 337.15.

                                                

337.15.  

(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 10 years after the substantial completion of the development or improvement for any of the following:

(1) Any latent deficiency in the design, specification, surveying, planning, supervision, or observation of construction or construction of an improvement to, or
survey of, real property.

(2) Injury to property, real or personal, arising out of any such latent deficiency.

(b) As used in this section, “latent deficiency” means a deficiency which is not apparent by reasonable inspection.

(c) As used in this section, “action” includes an action for indemnity brought against a person arising out of that person’s performance or furnishing of services or materials referred to in this section, except that a cross-complaint for indemnity may be filed pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 428.10 in an action which has been brought within the time period set forth in subdivision (a) of this section.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed as extending the period prescribed by the laws of this state for bringing
any action.

(e) The limitation prescribed by this section shall not be asserted by way of defense by any person in actual possession or the control, as owner, tenant or otherwise, of such an improvement, at the time any deficiency in the improvement constitutes the proximate cause for which it is proposed to bring an action.

(f) This section shall not apply to actions based on willful misconduct or fraudulent concealment.

(g) The 10-year period specified in subdivision (a) shall commence upon substantial completion of the improvement, but not later than the date of one of the following, whichever first occurs:

(1) The date of final inspection by the applicable public agency.

(2) The date
of recordation of a valid notice of completion.

(3) The date of use or occupation of the improvement.

(4) One year after termination or cessation of work on the improvement.

The date of substantial completion shall relate specifically to the performance or furnishing design, specifications, surveying, planning, supervision, testing, observation of construction or construction services by each profession or trade rendering services to the improvement.

(Amended by Stats. 1981, Ch. 88, Sec. 1.)

View Latest Rulings

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.

  • Name

    VENTURE VS. LB/VCC

  • Case No.

    MSC17-01441

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2017

But Lantzy dealt with whether repair work equitably tolls the limitations period provided by section 337.15. It did not address how so-called repair work could affect the date an improvement is considered “substantially complete” within the meaning of section 337.15, or when the ten-year limitations period provided by section 337.15 starts to run.

  • Name

    HAPPY VALLEY VS. COHEN

  • Case No.

    MSC13-01453

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2017

) [2] Barclays notice additionally mentions Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, but the body of the motion only discusses section 337.15. (See Notice of Motion, p. 2; see also Motion, pp. 6-8, 16-21.) Since section 337.15s time limit (10 years) is greater than section 337.1s (four years), it is probable that claims barred pursuant to section 337.15 would also be barred pursuant to section 337.1. Regardless, the Courts analysis is limited to section 337.15.

  • Name

    SHELL OIL COMPANY VS BARCLAY HOLLANDER CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC544786

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

As such, City argues that only section 337.15 is potentially applicable. City further contends that section 337.15 is also inapplicable because cross-defendants were in actual possession or control over the property at the time the defective improvement was constructed. City also argues that section 337.15 is not applicable because the project was never substantially completed. In their supplemental brief, Americap and True Life contend the ten-year bar under section 337.15 applies.

  • Name

    SALTON SEA ESTATES III LLC VS CITY OF BLYTHE

  • Case No.

    CVBL2100172

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

CCP section 337.15 cannot supply the applicable limitations period. CCP section 337.15(a)(1) provides a ten-year limitations period for a “latent deficiency” in the “construction of an improvement to … real property.” However, CCP section 337.15(b) says that a “latent deficiency means a deficiency which is not apparent by reasonable inspection.”

  • Name

    MOHAN VS GREYSTONE HOMES [COMP

  • Case No.

    MSC12-02960

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2017

View More Rulings

View Latest Dockets

22 Files
Filed

Mar 12, 2020

Status

Non-Jury Verdict

Judge

Hon. Stephen E. Benson Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Stephen E. Benson

Court

Butte County

County

Butte County, CA

Practice Area

Commercial

Matter Type

Breach of Contract

Filed

Jul 05, 2013

Status

Judgment (Other)

Court

Superior

County

Contra Costa County, CA

Filed

Apr 04, 2008

Status

Closed

Court

Stockton

County

San Joaquin County, CA

Category

Unlimited Civil Construction Defect (Complex Litigation)

Practice Area

Torts

Matter Type

Construction

Filed

Jul 14, 1998

Status

Dismissal

Judge

Hon. Laurence D. Rubin Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Laurence D. Rubin

Court

Santa Monica Courthouse

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Category

Commrcial Compl-Not Tort or Complx (General Jurisdiction)

Practice Area

Commercial

Matter Type

General Commercial

12 Files
Filed

May 12, 2006

Status

Dismissal

Judge

Hon. Arlene T. Borick Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Arlene T. Borick

Court

San Francisco County

County

San Francisco County, CA

Category

CONTRACT/WARRANTY

Practice Area

Commercial

Matter Type

Breach of Contract

View More Dockets
Previous Section

Doc thumbnail Section 337.1.

Next Section

Doc thumbnail Section 337.2.

View Latest Documents

preview-icon 17 pages

1 || Jeffrey B. Cereghino, State Bar No. 099480 jbc@rocklawcal.com 2 || Jan A. Kopezynski, State Bar No. 201040 jJak@rocklawcal.com ELECTRONICALLY 3 || RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 FILED. 4 || San Fraricisco, California 94111 Superior Court of California, Tel: 415.433.4949 County of San Francisco 5 || Facs: 415.433.7311 APR 29 2013 Clerk of the Court 6 || Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: ANNIE PASCUAL / 301 Bryant Street Owners’ Association Deputy Clerk | 7…

County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

Apr 29, 2013

Category

CONSTRUCTION

Judge Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Curtis E.A. Karnow
preview-icon 11 pages

RAM, OLSON 585 Montgomery Strvet, Suite 320 Sau Francisco, CA 98111 ay DAWU Bw WY Jeffrey B. Cereghino, State Bar No. 099480 joc@recklaweal.com Jan A. Kopezynski, State Bar No. 201040 jak@rocklawcal.com ELECTRONICALLY RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 FILED San Francisco, California 94111 Superior Court of California, Tel: 415.433.4949 County of San Francisco Facs: 415.433.7311 MAY 28 2013 Clerk of the Court Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: VANESSA WU Depu…

County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

May 28, 2013

Category

CONSTRUCTION

Judge Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Curtis E.A. Karnow
preview-icon 11 pages

RAM, OLSON CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSIC LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Shite 820 ‘San Franciseo, CA 94111 Jeffrey B. Cereghino, State Bar No. 099480 jbc@rocklawcal.com Jan A. Kopezynski, State Bar No. 201040 jak@rocklawcal.com ELECTRONICALLY RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP FILED 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, California 94111 Tel: 415.433.4949 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Faes: 415.433.7311 JUN 05 2013 Clerk of the Court Attorneys for Plaintiff BY:…

County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

Jun 05, 2013

Category

CONSTRUCTION

Judge Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Curtis E.A. Karnow
preview-icon 11 pages

Fn NIA OE DNL IAAL APE APC ANAN I TENE TIERRA LAY SHEENA IRCA AEUTOOUATOOC SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet May-18-2012 2:59 pm Case Number: CGC-10-498040 Filing Date: May-18-2012 2:53 Filed by: Juke Box: 001 Image: 03621808 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 301 BRYANT STREET OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, A VS. RINCON POINT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, A et al 001003621808 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.e…

County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

May 18, 2012

Category

CONSTRUCTION

Judge Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Curtis E.A. Karnow
preview-icon 9 pages

UA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Apr-06-2012 1:31 pm Case Number: CGC-10-498040 Filing Date: Apr-06-2012 1:31 Filed by: WESLEY G. RAMIREZ Juke Box: 001 Image: 03566174 REPLY 301 BRYANT STREET OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, A VS. RINCON POINT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, A etal 001003566174 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.1 | Steven M. Cvitanovic (Bar No. 168031) Robert W. Thompson (Bar No. 250038) HAIGHT BRO…

County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

Apr 06, 2012

Category

CONSTRUCTION

Judge Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Curtis E.A. Karnow
View More Documents

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope