Source: https://www.lexislegalnews.com/mealeys-construction-defects/news?article_sidebar=1&facet=&page=6&q=
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:13:04+00:00

Document:
LAKE CHARLES, La. — A federal judge in Louisiana on Sept. 7 adopted a magistrate judge’s Aug. 16 recommendation to grant a roofing subcontractor’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that a couple’s suit claiming that a replacement roof was improperly installed on their home was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations (Elmo Green, et al. v. Lowe’s Home Center LLC, et al., No. 16cv698, W.D. La., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153240).
LOS ANGELES — A California company on Aug. 8 filed a lawsuit in state court against the developer, builder and subcontractors who performed work on a $22 million, 10,000-square-foot home, complaining that the defendants concealed defects in the installation of the home’s driveway, retaining wall and rain tank system and failed to repair 143 known construction defects (Victrola 89 LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC, et al., No. BC 717254, Calif. Super., Los Angeles Co.).
EAST ST. LOUIS, Ill. — A homeowner who claimed that roofing shingles made by Tamko Building Products Inc. cracked and fell apart prematurely on Aug. 31 voluntarily dismissed a class action lawsuit he brought against the company in Illinois federal court, months after a federal judge found that a request for class certification was moot due to a lack of plaintiffs with live claims (Richard Disher, et al. v. Tamko Building Products Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-00740, S.D. Ill.).
BOSTON — A woman’s 2016 lawsuit claiming that the installation of faulty wiring by a subcontractor in 2001 caused a fire at her home in 2012 was properly dismissed by a trial court judge as untimely, a 4-3 Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled Aug. 29, finding that the woman’s claim under Massachusetts’ Consumer Protection Law was “sufficiently tort like” and, thus, subject to the six-year statute of repose (Terry Bridgwood v. A.J. Wood Construction Inc., et al., No. SJC-12352, Mass. Sup., 2018 Mass. LEXIS 561).
LEXINGTON, Ky. — The maker of an acrylic roof coating was awarded summary judgment on Aug. 30 by a federal judge in Kentucky after he found that a roofing contractor was unable to show that the manufacturer breached any warranty for the product regarding its inability to fully match the color of the existing coating as well as its specifications for the purpose of the project (Duke’s Roofing & Exterior Construction LLC v. Lexis Coatings LLC, No. 16-CV-432, E.D. Ky., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148134).
MIAMI— A man filed a lawsuit against a contractor hired to install hurricane-impact doors and windows and the maker of the products in Florida state court on Aug. 23, contending that the contractor breached the terms of their agreement and that the windows and doors were defective because they allowed water intrusion (Rafael P. Perez v. R.J.S. Consultants Inc., et al., No. 2018-028857-CA-01, Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Co.).
HARRIBURG, Pa. — A Pennsylvania appeals panel on Aug. 29 upheld a home builder’s summary judgment award, finding that the testimony of a couple’s expert on liability and damages from improperly installed stucco was unreliable because it was based only on the reports of experts (Du Phung, et al. v. The Cutler Group Inc., No. 621 EDA 2017, Pa. Super., 2018 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3195).
RENO, Nev. — The amounts listed in prelitigation settlement demands submitted by homeowners to Lennar Reno LLC can be used to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, a federal judge in Nevada ruled Aug. 27 in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand (William Kraus, et al. v. Lennar Reno LLC, et al., No. 18-cv-00120-MMD-WGC, D. Nev., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145006).
AUSTIN, Texas — A Texas appeals panel on Aug. 28 vacated a verdict entered in favor of a couple who claimed that a drywall installer’s defective work caused paint to peel off the walls, holding that the plaintiffs’ experts failed to present sufficient testimony on proximate causation (River City Drywall LLC v. Eric Hanlon, et al., No. 03-17-00482-CV, Texas App., 3rd Dist., 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 6837).
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A trial court judge in North Carolina on Aug. 24 stayed a construction defects lawsuit brought by the current owners of a 40-building apartment complex, finding that the plaintiffs’ breach of warranty and civil conspiracy claims against the builder of the complex as well as a subcontractor that provided soil services are subject to arbitration (Charlotte Student Housing District, et al. v. Choate Construction Co., et al., No. 18 CVS 5148, S.C. Super., Mecklenburg Co., 2018 NCBC LEXIS 88).
CHARLESTON, S.C. — A man sued W.M. Barr & Co. Inc. and Lowe’s Home Centers LLC on Aug. 10 in South Carolina federal court, alleging that his son’s exposure to the fumes of Goof-Off SS caused his death (Hal G. Wynne Jr. v. W.M. Barr & Co. Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-2203, D. S.C.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A couple’s lawsuit seeking to vacate an arbitration award over construction defects should not be remanded to state court, a federal judge in Delaware ruled Aug. 21 in adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation and overruling the plaintiffs’ objections, holding that the magistrate properly found that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and that complete diversity exists between the parties (Jason Jones, et al. v. Home Buyers Warranty, et al., No. 17-773-JFB,SRF, D. Del., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141220).
SEATTLE — A couple says in a motion filed Aug. 13 in a Washington federal court that a proposed class of individuals who own homes with Certainteed’s Landmark 30 shingles should be certified because it is “straightforward” and because their claims “can be easily tried on a classwide basis” (Paula Wetzel, et al. v. Certainteed Corp., No. 16cv01160, W.D. Wash.).
ATLANTA — The federal judge in Georgia overseeing lawsuits claiming that a brand of shingles made by Atlas Roofing Corp. were defective because they prematurely cracked, blistered and lost granules on July 20 dismissed a condominium owners association’s claims for fraudulent concealment, negligence and negligent design and strict liability, finding that they are barred by the state’s four-year statute of limitations (In re: Atlas Roofing Corp. Chalet Shingle Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2495, Mosaic at Vinings Condominium Association Inc. v. Atlas Roofing Corp., No. 17-cv-4928, N.D. Ga., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121185).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — A South Carolina appeals panel on Aug. 6 affirmed a trial court judge’s denial of a general contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that indemnification provisions in two agreements with a subcontractor that installed windows that leaked was not required to indemnify it for damages, holding that the lower court properly applied the clear and unequivocal standard when reviewing the language in the provisions (Concord and Cumberland Horizontal Property Regime, et al. v. Concord & Cumberland LLC, et al., No. 5585, S.C. App., 2018 S.C. App. LEXIS 60).
PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal magistrate judge in Oregon on Aug. 2 disqualified a law firm from representing a homeowners association in a suit against members of its former board of directors and management company, finding that the firm’s work with the defendants in an earlier construction defects suit resulted in a conflict of interest (Quatama Park Townhomes Owners Association v. RBC Real Estate Finance Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-00023, D. Ore., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130761).
CHICAGO — A home builder on July 27 moved to dismiss a couple’s amended complaint accusing it of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) and breaching the terms of a sales agreement, contending that the plaintiffs’ new complaint again failed to satisfy the heightened pleading requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) (Paul Smith, et al. v. NVR Inc., No. 17 C 8328, N.D. Ill.).
MINNEAPOLIS — A federal magistrate judge in Minnesota on July 30 recommended denying a motion to compel arbitration filed by the maker of joists that contain a coating that allegedly emits harmful levels of formaldehyde, finding that the home purchase agreement (HPA) between the buyer and the builder says that any pre-closing disputes should be resolved in “a court of competent jurisdiction where the property is located” (Dennis Esanbock, et al. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., No. 17cv3702, D. Minn.).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.