Construction Defect Lawsuits: has anyone ever taken part in one?

[mydogsarelazy]

Thanks so much to all of you: this is some great information.

SK in CV, I think you have very likely described exactly what we would be in for. My inclination will probably be to stay away from all of this, given the potential hassle factor and the relatively low settlement amounts after fees.

JS

[Coronita]

mydogsarelazy,

It doesn’t sound like you generally have problems with your home, and if you do, have you tried to work it out with the builder first?
You might also want to ask other piggs more knowledgeable, but…If you are part of a construction defect lawsuit you might have a few drawbacks.

1)If you plan on refinancing with a pending lawsuit, that *might* be a problem or if someone else is trying to buy, that might be a problem from loans.

2)Suppose that you retain the firm, the firm lists a bunch of stuff that is considered “defect”, and then after lawsuit is said and done, you get a few hundred or a few thousand after legal expenses…Not nearly enough to cover anywhere close of what they documented as a “defect”…Now you decide to sell the home…(a)Don’t you have to disclose what the law firm found?….(b)If so, then isn’t the next logically thing the potential buyer going to ask is “did you fix all those things they found were defects?”

[Coronita]

mydogsarelazy,

It doesn’t sound like you generally have problems with your home, and if you do, have you tried to work it out with the builder first?
You might also want to ask other piggs more knowledgeable, but…If you are part of a construction defect lawsuit you might have a few drawbacks.

1)If you plan on refinancing with a pending lawsuit, that *might* be a problem or if someone else is trying to buy, that might be a problem from loans.

2)Suppose that you retain the firm, the firm lists a bunch of stuff that is considered “defect”, and then after lawsuit is said and done, you get a few hundred or a few thousand after legal expenses…Not nearly enough to cover anywhere close of what they documented as a “defect”…Now you decide to sell the home…(a)Don’t you have to disclose what the law firm found?….(b)If so, then isn’t the next logically thing the potential buyer going to ask is “did you fix all those things they found were defects?”

[Coronita]

mydogsarelazy,

It doesn’t sound like you generally have problems with your home, and if you do, have you tried to work it out with the builder first?
You might also want to ask other piggs more knowledgeable, but…If you are part of a construction defect lawsuit you might have a few drawbacks.

1)If you plan on refinancing with a pending lawsuit, that *might* be a problem or if someone else is trying to buy, that might be a problem from loans.

2)Suppose that you retain the firm, the firm lists a bunch of stuff that is considered “defect”, and then after lawsuit is said and done, you get a few hundred or a few thousand after legal expenses…Not nearly enough to cover anywhere close of what they documented as a “defect”…Now you decide to sell the home…(a)Don’t you have to disclose what the law firm found?….(b)If so, then isn’t the next logically thing the potential buyer going to ask is “did you fix all those things they found were defects?”

[Coronita]

mydogsarelazy,

It doesn’t sound like you generally have problems with your home, and if you do, have you tried to work it out with the builder first?
You might also want to ask other piggs more knowledgeable, but…If you are part of a construction defect lawsuit you might have a few drawbacks.

1)If you plan on refinancing with a pending lawsuit, that *might* be a problem or if someone else is trying to buy, that might be a problem from loans.

2)Suppose that you retain the firm, the firm lists a bunch of stuff that is considered “defect”, and then after lawsuit is said and done, you get a few hundred or a few thousand after legal expenses…Not nearly enough to cover anywhere close of what they documented as a “defect”…Now you decide to sell the home…(a)Don’t you have to disclose what the law firm found?….(b)If so, then isn’t the next logically thing the potential buyer going to ask is “did you fix all those things they found were defects?”

[Coronita]

mydogsarelazy,

It doesn’t sound like you generally have problems with your home, and if you do, have you tried to work it out with the builder first?
You might also want to ask other piggs more knowledgeable, but…If you are part of a construction defect lawsuit you might have a few drawbacks.

1)If you plan on refinancing with a pending lawsuit, that *might* be a problem or if someone else is trying to buy, that might be a problem from loans.

2)Suppose that you retain the firm, the firm lists a bunch of stuff that is considered “defect”, and then after lawsuit is said and done, you get a few hundred or a few thousand after legal expenses…Not nearly enough to cover anywhere close of what they documented as a “defect”…Now you decide to sell the home…(a)Don’t you have to disclose what the law firm found?….(b)If so, then isn’t the next logically thing the potential buyer going to ask is “did you fix all those things they found were defects?”

[SD Attorney]

SK in CV’s comments are pretty much dead on in my experience, unless of course there are major problems that are uncovered during the destructive testing stage, which is usually not the case.

I am a San Diego attorney and have also been involved in several construction defect lawsuits representing both homeowners and developers/contractors over the years.

I have not heard of the law firm that contacted you, but there are a lot of firms out there that do similar mass mailing type actions. There is a ten year statute of limitations on construction defect actions, so virtually any tract development will likely go through a construction defect lawsuit at some point in the first ten years following completion. Believe me, experts can always find something wrong with construction.

[SD Attorney]

SK in CV’s comments are pretty much dead on in my experience, unless of course there are major problems that are uncovered during the destructive testing stage, which is usually not the case.

I am a San Diego attorney and have also been involved in several construction defect lawsuits representing both homeowners and developers/contractors over the years.

I have not heard of the law firm that contacted you, but there are a lot of firms out there that do similar mass mailing type actions. There is a ten year statute of limitations on construction defect actions, so virtually any tract development will likely go through a construction defect lawsuit at some point in the first ten years following completion. Believe me, experts can always find something wrong with construction.

[SD Attorney]

SK in CV’s comments are pretty much dead on in my experience, unless of course there are major problems that are uncovered during the destructive testing stage, which is usually not the case.

I am a San Diego attorney and have also been involved in several construction defect lawsuits representing both homeowners and developers/contractors over the years.

I have not heard of the law firm that contacted you, but there are a lot of firms out there that do similar mass mailing type actions. There is a ten year statute of limitations on construction defect actions, so virtually any tract development will likely go through a construction defect lawsuit at some point in the first ten years following completion. Believe me, experts can always find something wrong with construction.

[SD Attorney]

SK in CV’s comments are pretty much dead on in my experience, unless of course there are major problems that are uncovered during the destructive testing stage, which is usually not the case.

I am a San Diego attorney and have also been involved in several construction defect lawsuits representing both homeowners and developers/contractors over the years.

I have not heard of the law firm that contacted you, but there are a lot of firms out there that do similar mass mailing type actions. There is a ten year statute of limitations on construction defect actions, so virtually any tract development will likely go through a construction defect lawsuit at some point in the first ten years following completion. Believe me, experts can always find something wrong with construction.

[SD Attorney]

SK in CV’s comments are pretty much dead on in my experience, unless of course there are major problems that are uncovered during the destructive testing stage, which is usually not the case.

I am a San Diego attorney and have also been involved in several construction defect lawsuits representing both homeowners and developers/contractors over the years.

I have not heard of the law firm that contacted you, but there are a lot of firms out there that do similar mass mailing type actions. There is a ten year statute of limitations on construction defect actions, so virtually any tract development will likely go through a construction defect lawsuit at some point in the first ten years following completion. Believe me, experts can always find something wrong with construction.

[svelte]

A few points are being missed here, I think.

Back when I was going through this, the lawyer told me that one could not collect for something was not installed according to code. HOWEVER, if not following code caused damage to something then that would hold up in court.

Example: If code is that every roof tile is to be nailed down, one could not collect if that was not done. However, if not nailing caused tiles to shift and water to damage the home’s interior, that could be the basis of a construction defect lawsuit. Please correct me if this has changed in the last 10-15 years.

This was important in my case. I would sometimes get a leak in my downstairs bathroom. We noticed it was after each rain, so suspected there was a roof problem – one of the reasons we joined the suit. When the insurer’s inspectors came through, the guy on the roof noticed a tile had slid (wasn’t nailed down) and asked if he should slide it back in place…I said yes! After he left, I had someone go up and secure the tiles in that area and guess what? I never had another leak!

I was able to use the $$ from the lawsuit to repair the roof, fix the damaged sheet rock, and do a few other small improvements to the home.

So I’m not sure I agree with all those who say “don’t do it”…I say it depends upon your situation. Had I not participated, I would have been out the repair money and may have spent much more trying to find out where the leak was.

As it was, everything worked out perfectly for everyone involved. Now, had the builder not went BK, I probably would not have sued but would have approached the builder to rectify the problem. Because of my situation, I did not have that as an option.

[svelte]

A few points are being missed here, I think.

Back when I was going through this, the lawyer told me that one could not collect for something was not installed according to code. HOWEVER, if not following code caused damage to something then that would hold up in court.

Example: If code is that every roof tile is to be nailed down, one could not collect if that was not done. However, if not nailing caused tiles to shift and water to damage the home’s interior, that could be the basis of a construction defect lawsuit. Please correct me if this has changed in the last 10-15 years.

This was important in my case. I would sometimes get a leak in my downstairs bathroom. We noticed it was after each rain, so suspected there was a roof problem – one of the reasons we joined the suit. When the insurer’s inspectors came through, the guy on the roof noticed a tile had slid (wasn’t nailed down) and asked if he should slide it back in place…I said yes! After he left, I had someone go up and secure the tiles in that area and guess what? I never had another leak!

I was able to use the $$ from the lawsuit to repair the roof, fix the damaged sheet rock, and do a few other small improvements to the home.

So I’m not sure I agree with all those who say “don’t do it”…I say it depends upon your situation. Had I not participated, I would have been out the repair money and may have spent much more trying to find out where the leak was.

As it was, everything worked out perfectly for everyone involved. Now, had the builder not went BK, I probably would not have sued but would have approached the builder to rectify the problem. Because of my situation, I did not have that as an option.

[svelte]

A few points are being missed here, I think.

Back when I was going through this, the lawyer told me that one could not collect for something was not installed according to code. HOWEVER, if not following code caused damage to something then that would hold up in court.

Example: If code is that every roof tile is to be nailed down, one could not collect if that was not done. However, if not nailing caused tiles to shift and water to damage the home’s interior, that could be the basis of a construction defect lawsuit. Please correct me if this has changed in the last 10-15 years.

This was important in my case. I would sometimes get a leak in my downstairs bathroom. We noticed it was after each rain, so suspected there was a roof problem – one of the reasons we joined the suit. When the insurer’s inspectors came through, the guy on the roof noticed a tile had slid (wasn’t nailed down) and asked if he should slide it back in place…I said yes! After he left, I had someone go up and secure the tiles in that area and guess what? I never had another leak!

I was able to use the $$ from the lawsuit to repair the roof, fix the damaged sheet rock, and do a few other small improvements to the home.

So I’m not sure I agree with all those who say “don’t do it”…I say it depends upon your situation. Had I not participated, I would have been out the repair money and may have spent much more trying to find out where the leak was.

As it was, everything worked out perfectly for everyone involved. Now, had the builder not went BK, I probably would not have sued but would have approached the builder to rectify the problem. Because of my situation, I did not have that as an option.

[svelte]

A few points are being missed here, I think.

Back when I was going through this, the lawyer told me that one could not collect for something was not installed according to code. HOWEVER, if not following code caused damage to something then that would hold up in court.

Example: If code is that every roof tile is to be nailed down, one could not collect if that was not done. However, if not nailing caused tiles to shift and water to damage the home’s interior, that could be the basis of a construction defect lawsuit. Please correct me if this has changed in the last 10-15 years.

This was important in my case. I would sometimes get a leak in my downstairs bathroom. We noticed it was after each rain, so suspected there was a roof problem – one of the reasons we joined the suit. When the insurer’s inspectors came through, the guy on the roof noticed a tile had slid (wasn’t nailed down) and asked if he should slide it back in place…I said yes! After he left, I had someone go up and secure the tiles in that area and guess what? I never had another leak!

I was able to use the $$ from the lawsuit to repair the roof, fix the damaged sheet rock, and do a few other small improvements to the home.

So I’m not sure I agree with all those who say “don’t do it”…I say it depends upon your situation. Had I not participated, I would have been out the repair money and may have spent much more trying to find out where the leak was.

As it was, everything worked out perfectly for everyone involved. Now, had the builder not went BK, I probably would not have sued but would have approached the builder to rectify the problem. Because of my situation, I did not have that as an option.

[Author]

Posts