In lawzilla.com’s California Court Opinions comes this published decision on contractor liability for defects…
Plaintiffs Mehmet and Aynar Gundogdu (the Gundogdus) appeal a summary judgment in favor of defendant King Mai, Inc., a California corporation doing business as Hyde Park Estates (King Mai), on their complaint for negligence and breach of implied warranty. Plaintiffs contend that the court erred in holding their action for damages arising out of defects in the construction of their home to be barred by the 10-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15. We affirm.
On November 2, 1995, King Mai filed a notice of completion for a home it constructed on its own account at 199 Kings Court in San Carlos, California. On March 13, 1997, plaintiffs purchased the home from King Mai. The purchase contract identified 26 categories of repairs that King Mai agreed to complete. Between March and August 1997, King Mai attempted but failed to complete the repairs to plaintiffs’ satisfaction. In August, King Mai confirmed that certain repairs had not been completed but pledged to continue working on them. In October 1997, plaintiffs, still unhappy with the repair work, had an independent inspection performed. The inspection report identified numerous deficiencies, including defects in the retaining wall, improper installation of windows and doors in the master bedroom and living room, and cracked trim. It is unclear from the record when this report was delivered to King Mai and no further repairs were performed in response to the report.
In December 2002, plaintiffs contacted King Mai about water damage caused by leakage following a winter storm. King Mai acknowledged potential responsibility for the leak and confirmed that it would repair the damage. In January 2003, plaintiff wrote to King Mai complaining that there had been structural water damage in the home for five years. Plaintiffs warned that they would take legal action if repairs were not completed immediately. Within days, King Mai informed plaintiffs in writing that it was not responsible for the leak or any resulting water damage.
Read the rest of the decision and opinion by clicking here.