California Construction Accident Lawyers

This Is A Construction Defect Case Inco Developed And Constructed Each Of The 216 Homes In The Reunion Subdivision

This is a construction defect case. Inco developed and constructed each of the 216 homes in the Reunion subdivision in Adelanto that are the subject of this litigation. Inco moved for summary judgment on the ground that the 10-year statute of
limitations under section 337.152 for latent defects barred action as to 157 of the homes 1 All further statutory references will be to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 2 Section 337.15 states in pertinent part: “(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, involved. As to these homes, completion certificates were recorded on or before May 16, 1993, commencing the period for filing action for latent construction defects.3 The first of the lawsuits brought by 14 individual residents was filed May 16, 2003. Inco had filed bankruptcy on October 15, 1999, and the bankruptcy action was dismissed and the stay lifted on May 24, 2001. Plaintiffs filed an opposition in which they argued that the statute of limitations was tolled for the 19-month period from October 1999 through May 2001, during which the bankruptcy stay was in effect. The trial court denied summary judgment on the ground that the 10-year limitations period is subject to the tolling provision of section 356.4 arising out of any such latent deficiency. (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed as extending the period prescribed by the laws of this state for bringing any action.  (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.
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.” Plaintiffs have disputed whether the completion certificates were valid; however, the trial court indicated that plaintiffs did not submit any evidence to dispute their validity. 4 Section 356 states as follows: “When the commencement of an action is stayed by injunction or statutory prohibition, the time of the continuance of the injunction or
prohibition is not part of the time limited for the commencement of the action.” Inco seeks writ review, contending that section 337.15 is a statute of repose and is not subject to the tolling principles of section 356.I. Background—The Normal Effect of a Bankruptcy Stay is to Toll Statutes of Limitation The filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as an automatic stay of the commencement or continuation of a judicial proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding.

Contact California Construction Accident Attorneys

Contact a Construction Accident Lawyer now for a free case review.