 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Superior Court of San Diego County6/11/1998
Petitions denied.
Consolidated proceedings in mandate in construction defect actions after the trial court (1) ruled petitioners had not established a "special relationship" with real parties under J'Aire Corp. v. Gregory (1979) 24 Cal.3d 799 (J'Aire); (2) granted real parties' in limine motions excluding evidence of alleged construction defects which had not resulted in personal injury or physical damage to other property, and of related economic losses sustained by the petitioners; and (3) issued an order excluding evidence of post-repair "stigma" damages. Petitions denied.
BACKGROUND
These consolidated writ proceedings were brought by the plaintiffs in two separate construction defect actions. In the first action (the Proven‡al case), petitioner Proven‡al Community Association (the Association) is the homeowners association for a condominium project developed and built by real parties in interest The William Lyon Company and Lyon Communities, Inc. (together, Lyon). In the second action (the Aas case), the petitioners (Aas petitioners) are the owners of homes in a subdivision also developed and built by Lyon.
Both the Association and the Aas petitioners (collectively, petitioners) seek peremptory writs of mandate compelling the superior court to (a) vacate its orders granting the motions in limine brought by Lyon and the other real parties in interest (subcontractors) to exclude or limit petitioners' introduction of evidence (in support of their respective negligence claims) of construction defects (including governing building code violations and other defects resulting from allegedly negligent failures to meet the standard of care for reasonable and workerlike construction and deviations from approved plans and specifications) that have not caused present physical harm to persons or other property but have allegedly caused economic loss to the petitioners; and (b) to enter a new order denying the in limine motions.
The Aas petitioners also seek an order compelling the superior court to vacate its sua sponte pretrial order preventing petitioners from introducing evidence of post-repair "stigma" damages, and enter an order allowing the introduction of this evidence.
Three issues are presented. The first is whether developers, general contractors and subcontractors owe a duty of care to homeowners associations and individual homeowners with respect to the construction of mass-produced housing. We conclude they owe such a duty of care. We also conclude that the court, in ruling that petitioners had not established a "special relationship" with real parties in interest within the meaning of J'Aire, supra, 24 Cal.3d 799, implicitly and erroneously found that real parties in interest did not owe petitioners a duty of care.
The second issue presented is whether homeowners associations and individual owners of mass-produced housing may recover damages in negligence actions against developers, general contractors and subcontractors for construction defects involving violations of minimum construction standards set forth in the Uniform Building Code and other codes, which defects have not resulted in personal injury or physical damage to other property, and thus have allegedly caused the plaintiffs to sustain only economic loss damages. We conclude homeowners associations and individual homeowners do not have a private right of action in negligence against developers, general contractors, and subcontractors for recovery of purely economic losses they sustain as a proximate result of construction defects in mass-produced housing (including but not limited to those involving violations of governing building codes) which have not yet
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|