The Court of Appeal recently held that the issue of standing/accrual to bring a construction defect lawsuit where the underlying facts are in dispute must be decided by a jury rather than a bench trial as articulated in Stofer v. Shapell Industries (California Court of Appeal - A139385; January 15, 2015). In Stofer, the Plaintiff was the 3rd purchaser of the subject property. She purchased a home from Dr. Laux (the 2nd owner). Almost two years later, she sued the homebuilder, Shapell for strict liability, negligence, and fraudulent concealment, claiming Shapell built the home on unstable and uncompacted “fill” soil and with an inadequate foundation, causing “substantial differential movement” and numerous defects such as cracked floors, walls, and ceilings. The court granted Shappel summary judgment as to fraudulent concealment and later and entered judgment for Shapell on the other claims, concluding plaintiff lacked standing because her claims accrued when Laux owned the home and he did not assign the claims to plaintiff. The court of appeal reversed. Construing the facts in a light most favorable to plaintiff, there is a triable issue of material fact regarding whether Shapell fraudulently concealed information about the property’s soil conditions. Plaintiff was entitled to have a jury determine the disputed factual issues of when and to whom the causes of action accrued. law.justia/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2015/a139385.html
Posted on: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 00:55:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015