Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/patent-defects-436
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 02:21:42
Document Index: 40762506

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 337', '§ 337', '§ 337', '§ 337', '§337', '§ 337', '§ 337', '§ 337', '§ 337', '§ 896']

Prosecuting Patent Defects
Patent Deficiency
Under CCP § 337.1 “patent deficiency” is defined as “a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection.” “A patent defect is one which can be discovered by such an inspection as would be made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence. This is contrasted with a latent defect, one which is hidden and which would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection.” (Wagner v. State of California (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 922, 927.)
“The test used to determine whether a deficiency is patent is not a subjective one, applied to each individual user; rather, it is an objective test based on the reasonable expectations of the average consumer.” (Mattingly v. Anthony Industries, Inc. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 506, 511.) “This test generally presents a question of fact, unless the defect is obvious in the context of common experience; than a determination of patent defect may be made as a matter of law (including on summary judgment).” (Creekridge Townhome Owners Assn., Inc. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 251, 256.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1 provides:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, no action shall be brought to recover damages from any person performing or furnishing the design, specifications, surveying, planning, supervision or observation of construction or construction of an improvement to real property more than four years after the substantial completion of such improvement for any of the following:
Any patent deficiency in the design, specifications, surveying, planning, supervision or observation of construction or construction of an improvement to, or survey of, real property;
If, by reason of such patent deficiency, an injury to property or the person or an injury causing wrongful death occurs during the fourth year after such substantial completion, an action in tort to recover damages for such an injury or wrongful death may be brought within one year after the date on which such injury occurred, irrespective of the date of death, but in no event may such an action be brought more than five years after the substantial completion of construction of such improvement.
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 such an improvement constitutes the proximate cause of the injury or death for which it is proposed to bring an action. "(e) As used in this section, `patent deficiency' means a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection. "(f) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not apply to any owner-occupied single-unit residence."
(See Mattingly v. Anthony Industries, Inc. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 506, 510 n. 1.)
Judicial Interpretation of the Statute of Limitations Provision
In deciding Mills v. Forestex Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 625, the court held that, “Sections 337.1 and 337.15 apply to actions for damages against persons involved in the construction of improvements to real property . . . and establish four-year and 10-year statutes of limitation for patent and latent defects, respectively. (Id. citing Winston Square Homeowner's Assn. v. Centex West, Inc. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 282, 290.)
The limitation periods in sections 337.1 and 337.15 start to run upon "substantial completion" of the improvement, and establish the outside limit within which an action must be filed, regardless of when the defect is discovered. That is, while the limitations period may in certain circumstances be less than the limit specified in the statute, it cannot be more. (Roger E. Smith, Inc. v. SHN Consulting Engineers & Geologists, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 638, 649.) The notice of completion on the Mills's house was filed on March 20, 1991.
Which of the two statutes applies turns on whether the defect is latent or patent. Whether a construction defect is latent or patent depends on whether it is 'apparent by reasonable inspection. (Secs. 337.1(e); 337.15(b).) A patent defect “is one which can be discovered by such an inspection as would be made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence. This is contrasted with a latent defect, one which is hidden and which would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection.” (Geertz v. Ausonio (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1367-1368) “Whether a defect is apparent by reasonable inspection is a question of fact.” (see Tomko, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at 1339 [test is objective one]) “What constitutes a reasonable inspection ‘is a matter to be determined from the totality of circumstances of the particular case[]’ and ‘must vary with the nature of the thing to be inspected and the nature and gravity of the harm which is sought to be averted.’ Whether a reasonable inspection would render a defect apparent is determined in light of ‘the reasonable expectations of the average consumer.’” (Mattingly v. Anthony Industries, Inc. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 506, 511.)
Useful Rulings on Patent Defects
NOUGDENG SAVENGRITH ET AL VS CITY OF POMONA ET AL
RE: Savengrith v. City of Pomona, et al. (BC603920) _____________________________________________ Defendant and Cross-Defendant Oltmans Construction Co.’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION, AS TO PLAINTIFFS NOUGDENG SAVENGRITH’S AND MONICA SAVENGRITH’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND CROSS-CLAIMANT CITY OF POMONA’S CROSS-COMPLAINT ...
..h’s (“Plaintiffs”) son (“decedent”) and Defendant Javier Luviano (“Luviano”), which occurred after decedent had pulled out of the Walnut Valley Commerce Center (“WVCC”) onto Valley Boulevard. The complaint was filed on December 11, 2015. On February 3, 2016, Luviano and Lizbeth Bucisosa (“Bucisosa”) filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against Cross-Defendants City of Pomon...
Air Wing LLC vs. One Piper Ranch LLC [E-FILE]
The court addresses the evidentiary issues. Defendant SB&O, Inc.'s request for judicial notice is granted as to 1-3 (Exhibits 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8) and denied as to 6 (Exhibit 13 – "Customized Weather History and accompanying raw data from the electronic version of Old Farmer's Almanac"). Plaintiffs' evidentiary objections to Exhibit 13 are sustained. Defendant SB&O's evidentiary objections are overru...
..337.1 4-year statute of limitations and pursuant to the CCP § 337.15 10-year statute of repose. It is undisputed that the Notice of Completion for the Project was recorded on November 8, 2004 [SSUMF 2]; Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on April 2, 2014 [SSUMF 3]; and that Plaintiffs filed an amendment adding SB&O as Doe 26 on October 16, 2015 [SSUMF 10]. CCP § 337.1 The court first...
Alan Naito, et al.; Plaintiffs, v. CENTEX HOMES REALTY COMPANY, et al.; Defendants.Case No.: BC698756Hearing Date: December 20, 2018[TENTATIVE] order RE:DEFENDANT RITNER GROUP, INC.’s Demurrer to THE FIRST AMENDED complaintDefendant Centex Homes Realty Company’s demurrer to the first amended complaintMOVING PARTY: (1) Defendant, Ritner Group, Inc.(2) Defendant, Centex Homes Realty CompanyRESPONDIN...
..Company, which developed and built the townhouse complex, and Ritner Group, Inc., which designed the townhouse complex (collectiv...
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARADEPARTMENT 20161 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113408.882.2320 · 408.882.2296 (fax)[email protected] (For Clerk's Use Only) http://www.scscourt.orgChevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Wendt & Sons Construction, Inc. CASE NO. 18CV334046 DATE: 30 January 2020 TIME: 9:00 LINE NUMBER: 1 This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Pete...
..FF CHVERON U.S.A.’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTI. Factual and Procedural BackgroundThis is a negligence and breach of contract case. Plaintiff Chevron U.S.A., Incorporated (“Plaintiff...
Laura Rodriguez vs. Western Pacific Housing LLC
P bought a home from a developer and moved in in September 1999. (SAC, ¶¶ 11.) In a complaint relating back to the initial filing date of July 27, 2009, P alleges a variety of construction defects, including plumbing leaks that manifested on April 19, 2007. (SAC, ¶ 26.) P alleges that developer's agent offered in April 2007 to fix the damage occasioned by the leak, but no repair was ever effected....
..'s allegation, inter alia, that the contract contains an "implied provision" that D "would replace... defective and broken items in a prompt, reasonable and professional manner"; and in 2007 P's agent ageed to do so. (SAC, ¶ ¶ 25, 26.) P responds that there are implied warranties as well as a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in such contracts which encompass workmanship and materials. We k...
Nature of Proceedings: Demurrer to Cross-Complaint CASE: McCoy Electric Corporation v. Annette Rubin, et al., Case No. 16CV03591 (Judge Sterne) HEARING DATE: January 6, 2020 MATTER: Demurrer to Cross-Complaint of Annette Rubin and Stuart Rubin ATTORNEYS: Barton C. Merrill for Plaintiff McCoy Electric Corporation Michael J. Kenney for Defendants and Cross-Complainants Annette Rubin and St...
..lectric”) at real property owned by defendants Annette Rubin and Stuart Rubin (together, “Rubins”), located at 4347 Marina Drive, Santa Barbara, California 92110. On August 15, 2016, McCoy Electric filed its complaint seeking unpaid fees for the work it performed. The Rubins cross-complained back against McCoy Electric and its principal, Richard Ray McCoy, for defective construction, overcharging,...
Recent Rulings on Patent Defects
Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1 establishes a four year statute of repose for injuries resulting from patent construction defects while section 337.15 sets a 10-year statute of repose for injuries resulting from latent construction defects. (Mills v. Forestex Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 644.) Thus, which section applies turns on whether a defect is latent or patent. (Ibid.) Whether a defect is patent or latent “depends on whether it is ‘apparent by reasonably inspection.’” (Mills v.
HERNANDEZ VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO
B-F) As the uneven or cracked roadway is a patent defect under CCP § 337.1(e), plaintiff's claims against moving defendant are time-barred. (See, Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1333-1339)
waive, extinguish, relinquish satisfaction, release, acquit and discharge, each other as well as persons described herein from liability, claims, indemnities, causes of action, demands, rights, damages, obligations, contracts, debts, controversies, costs, losses of any kind whatsoever, known or unknown, past, present or future, suspected or unsuspected, disclosed or undisclosed, anticipated or unanticipated, patent and latent construction defects as defined by the California Code of Civil Procedure sections 337.1
BROWN VS BRENEXUS OFFICE EDITION OWNERS ASSOCIATION
“[A] patent defect is one which can be discovered by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence. In contrast, a latent defect is hidden, and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection.” The Luckman Partnership, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 30, 35. There is question of fact whether the continuing diseased condition of the magnolia trees was patent or latent.
., whether latent or patent. They have also failed to provide a date for when the work was completed, making it impossible to determine whether the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Under California law, the statute of limitations for defects in design to real property is dependent upon the type of defect alleged. Actions for patent defects (defects that can be discovered upon reasonable inspection) must be brought within four years after completion of the work. Code Civ. Proc. §337.1, subd.
REBECCA SIMON VS REBECCA WOOLF ET AL
Here, there is at least a triable issue of material fact as to whether the defect was patent or latent. Merrill v. Buck (1962) 58 Cal. 2d 552, 558 is closely on point. In that case, Plaintiff had fallen down a set of stairs that led from the main floor to the basement. As with here, the stairs were behind a closed door and had no landing. The Court found that the jury had reasonably found that the stairway constituted a concealed hazard. The jury could so find in this case as well.
JOSEPH WOLF VS, REMPE CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL
Proc. § 337.1 (1).) The allegations make clear that the subject property located at 1080 Edgewood Avenue in Mill Valley, California is a single family residence. (See FAC 1H] 14, 17-18 & 23.)
VERONICA MARES VS HHB PROPERTIES LLC ET AL
.” * * * “Responsible Party” shall assume all risks for each and all attendees for any defects in the condition of the Location, whether patent or latent. * * * “The following are prohibited without the Property Owner’s permission: (a) Attaching or drilling into any existing building or structures; (b) Taping anything to painted surfaces; (c) Any and all pyrotechnic devices; (d) Access to the roof or any part thereof; (e) No gaffer tape or duct tape on any floor surfaces or walls; (f) Bringing animals to Location
Defects, latent or patent, in the Property go to issues of warranty, not illegal purpose. Pixior also argues that a lease “places the burden of compliance on the leasor (sic.)”, which either expressly or impliedly agrees to use the premises in compliance with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of any pertinent governmental authority. Salazar v. Maradeaga, (“Salazar”) (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 4. Opp. at 8.
MARK ELLENSOHN VS CITY OF BURBANK ET AL
The application of the exception thus depends on whether the defect at issue is “patent” or “latent.” HHS argues that MCI, the owner, by accepting the work done by HHS, assumed responsibility for HHS’s work, and at the time of acceptance became liable to third parties for such work.
KRANKL V. ROWLES HOLDINGS, LLC
In any event, the court denies Krankls’ summary adjudication motion for a more patent defect. Krankls simply list in serial fashion the affirmative defenses it challenges under “Issue No. 4” in their separate statement (1st , 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th ); they then list in serial fashion undisputed issues No. 1 to 31 under the Issue No. 4 heading, generically.
There were two different statutes of limitation for patent defects and latent defects, however, and therefore it did not make sense to take an approach under which “only one statute could apply and all construction defects at a development would have to be uniformly classified as patent or latent.” (Id. at 289.)
Plaintiffs hereby further fully and irrevocably release the Li-Ya Released Parties’ predecessors, successors, assigns, representatives, counsel, attorneys, past, present and future agents, actual apparent and implied servants, employees, representatives, insurers, and each of them who have been or may be in privity with the Li-Ya Release Parties from any and all liabilities, claims, causes of action, whether known or unknown, existing or potential, suspect or unspecified, latent or patent, direct or indirect
JOSE G VILLAGRANA VS SCOTTYS GAS STATION
A patent defect is one that can be discovered by an inspection made in the exercise of ordindary care and prudence. (Lewis v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 690, 697.) By contrast, a latent defect is one which is hidden and which would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. (Ibid.) Plaintiff argues the crack was a concealed hazard.
ALLYSON MARTIN VS WAYPOINTE HOMES ET AL
They contend they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because (a) the defect at issue was trivial, (b) Plaintiff cannot show Defendants had notice of the dangerous condition, (c) the condition was open and obvious, and (d) the defect was patent. Initial Notes Pursuant to the Court’s General Order Re: Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil, dated 11/05/18, ¶d(4)F, parties must lodge courtesy copies of all documents related to a summary judgment motion directly in the department.
(d) [Code of Civil Procedure §§ 337.15 and 337.1] do not apply to actions under this title.
DAVID ROBLES ET AL VS WELLS FARGO & COMPANY ET AL
A patent defect is one which is apparent by reasonable inspection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 337.1, subd. (e).) “In the context of a patent defect, the word ‘patent’ ‘refers to the patency of danger and not merely to exterior visiblity.’ [Citation.]” (Sanchez v. Swinerton & Walberg Co. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1461, 1471.)
Plaintiffs' demurrer based on failure to plead subsections of CCP § 337.1 and 337.15 and CC § 896, et seq." is sustained. Plaintiffs' demurrer based on specificity is overruled for the same reasons stated below. Affirmative Defense No. 10: Sustained. This affirmative defense is pled as follows: TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 11.