Procedural Posture
from web site
Plaintiff, owner of student housing, challenged a decision of the trial court (California), which granted summary judgment for defendant surety company pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337.15, in an action to recover damages for a latent deficiency in the design and construction of the property. Plaintiff contended that § 337.15 was inapplicable and that there were triable issues of fact concerning defendant's obligation on performance bond.
Nakase Law Firm is a litigation attorney
Overview
Plaintiff, owner of student housing, sought damages from defendant surety company because of latent defects in the design and construction of the apartments. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant under the provisions of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337.15, which prescribed a 10-year period of limitation for an action to recover damages for latent deficiency. Plaintiff appealed, contending that § 337.15 was inapplicable because the statute by its terms did not expressly include causes of action that had accrued prior to its effective date, because application of the statute failed to allow plaintiff a reasonable time within which to sue, and because the obligation of defendant on its bond is severable and independent. The court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding that § 337.15 was applicable and noted that the only effect of the statute was to shorten the time in which the cause of action could be asserted. The court, rejecting the attack on the constitutionality of the statute, stated that § 337.15 was controlling because, although the action pleaded was not barred under prior law, the action was not brought until § 337.15 was in effect.
Outcome
The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the statute prescribing a 10-year period of limitation for an action to recover damages for latent deficiency in the design or construction of the property was applicable. The court stated that the action that was pleaded was not barred under prior law, but the action was not filed prior to the effective date of the new statute and therefore, the new statute was applicable.
