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

[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.

[SK in CV]

[quote=svelte]A few points are being missed here, I think…….

[/quote]

You were correct on this svelte. But not anymore. Prior to 2003, recoverable damages in CD litigation in California was governed by a 2000 state supreme court case called Aas, which significantly limited (and in some cases eliminated) recovery to resultant damages, unrelated to whether construction was either within code guidelines or standard of care. If you had roof tiles that werent nailed properly, but didn’t leak, you didn’t have damages.

But all that changed in 2002 (see my comment above for the specific code sections) for purchases after 2002. There are now very specific standards which builders must meet, in some cases, regardless of actual damages. If some parts weren’t built right, but still operate correctly, there may be recoverable damages. It added a right to repair for the builder, and also changed the statute of limitations from 10 years across the board to other periods, depending on the defective assembly.

[SK in CV]

[quote=svelte]A few points are being missed here, I think…….

[/quote]

You were correct on this svelte. But not anymore. Prior to 2003, recoverable damages in CD litigation in California was governed by a 2000 state supreme court case called Aas, which significantly limited (and in some cases eliminated) recovery to resultant damages, unrelated to whether construction was either within code guidelines or standard of care. If you had roof tiles that werent nailed properly, but didn’t leak, you didn’t have damages.

But all that changed in 2002 (see my comment above for the specific code sections) for purchases after 2002. There are now very specific standards which builders must meet, in some cases, regardless of actual damages. If some parts weren’t built right, but still operate correctly, there may be recoverable damages. It added a right to repair for the builder, and also changed the statute of limitations from 10 years across the board to other periods, depending on the defective assembly.

[SK in CV]

[quote=svelte]A few points are being missed here, I think…….

[/quote]

You were correct on this svelte. But not anymore. Prior to 2003, recoverable damages in CD litigation in California was governed by a 2000 state supreme court case called Aas, which significantly limited (and in some cases eliminated) recovery to resultant damages, unrelated to whether construction was either within code guidelines or standard of care. If you had roof tiles that werent nailed properly, but didn’t leak, you didn’t have damages.

But all that changed in 2002 (see my comment above for the specific code sections) for purchases after 2002. There are now very specific standards which builders must meet, in some cases, regardless of actual damages. If some parts weren’t built right, but still operate correctly, there may be recoverable damages. It added a right to repair for the builder, and also changed the statute of limitations from 10 years across the board to other periods, depending on the defective assembly.

[SK in CV]

[quote=svelte]A few points are being missed here, I think…….

[/quote]

You were correct on this svelte. But not anymore. Prior to 2003, recoverable damages in CD litigation in California was governed by a 2000 state supreme court case called Aas, which significantly limited (and in some cases eliminated) recovery to resultant damages, unrelated to whether construction was either within code guidelines or standard of care. If you had roof tiles that werent nailed properly, but didn’t leak, you didn’t have damages.

But all that changed in 2002 (see my comment above for the specific code sections) for purchases after 2002. There are now very specific standards which builders must meet, in some cases, regardless of actual damages. If some parts weren’t built right, but still operate correctly, there may be recoverable damages. It added a right to repair for the builder, and also changed the statute of limitations from 10 years across the board to other periods, depending on the defective assembly.

[SK in CV]

[quote=svelte]A few points are being missed here, I think…….

[/quote]

You were correct on this svelte. But not anymore. Prior to 2003, recoverable damages in CD litigation in California was governed by a 2000 state supreme court case called Aas, which significantly limited (and in some cases eliminated) recovery to resultant damages, unrelated to whether construction was either within code guidelines or standard of care. If you had roof tiles that werent nailed properly, but didn’t leak, you didn’t have damages.

But all that changed in 2002 (see my comment above for the specific code sections) for purchases after 2002. There are now very specific standards which builders must meet, in some cases, regardless of actual damages. If some parts weren’t built right, but still operate correctly, there may be recoverable damages. It added a right to repair for the builder, and also changed the statute of limitations from 10 years across the board to other periods, depending on the defective assembly.

[evolusd]

We received a letter from a law firm today indicating that a number of homeowners in our new community are joining together for a class action CD suit. We bought the home new from the builder (large national) and have lived here for 1.5 years with very little issues, most of which the builder resolved at our request.

What concerns me is that there are multiple phases left in this development, 30 or so homes still to be built. Prices have increased significantly since we purchased and that trend seems to have some legs, but this CD lawsuit could scare potential homebuyers not only of resale homes in the development, but also the new ones being sold by the builder. Do they have to disclose the CD lawsuit to all their new buyers?

If people have serious issues, I get it; but it seems to me like people (and the attorneys) are hoping to get something for nothing…

[Author]

Posts