NEW ORLEANS — A Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Dec. 12 dismissed an appeal brought by a number of plaintiffs seeking review of the denial of their claim for remediation of Chinese-manufactured drywall from their homes, holding that they waived their right to appeal by entering into a settlement agreement (In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, No. 18-31223, 5th Cir.).
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — An Arkansas appeals court panel on Dec. 11 dismissed a couple’s appeal of a ruling dismissing their lawsuit accusing the builder of their home of breach of contract over alleged construction defects, holding that the trial court’s ruling did not address all of the plaintiffs’ claims (Ken Lancaster, et al. v. Rogers Construction Inc., et al., No. CV-19-139, Ark. App., 2nd Div., 2019 Ark. App. LEXIS 626).
SAN FRANCISCO — A Georgia couple and a company that own homes in Florida filed a class action in federal court in California on Dec. 2 against the maker of hurricane straps that were attached to their homes, alleging that the straps are defective because they prematurely corrode and do not protect homes against damages caused by hurricane-force winds (Cary W. Cooper, et al. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-7901, N.D. Calif.).
NEW ORLEANS — A manufacturer of allegedly defective drywall made in China filed a motion in Louisiana federal court Dec. 9 to deny class certification for a proposed nationwide class of individuals claiming they suffered physical and economic injuries as a result of having the product being in their homes, arguing that the allegations are untimely and lack commonality (In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2047, Elizabeth Bennett, et al. v. Gebr. Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft KG, et al., No. 14-2722, E.D. La.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A federal judge in Delaware on Dec. 2 overruled a couple’s objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation to affirm an arbitrator’s award in a construction defects case, holding that the magistrate judge did not err in finding that the arbitration provision of a home warranty was valid and enforceable (Jason Jones, et al. v. Home Buyers Warranty, et al., No. 17-773-JFB,SRF, D. Del., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206878).
TAMPA, Fla. — A number of active military personnel and their spouses on Dec. 2 filed a class action in Florida federal court accusing the owners and developers of the MacDill Air Force Base of failing to provide them with sufficient housing due to mold infestations that they claim have caused economic losses and physical injuries (Joshua Lenz, et al. v. Michaels Organization LLC, et al., No. 19-cv-2970-T-30, M.D. Fla.).
AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas Supreme Court on Nov. 22 upheld a ruling finding that a home warranty company is not required to arbitrate a couple’s class claims accusing it of requiring homeowners to provide overbroad releases as a precondition to fulfilling its warranty obligations to remedy construction defects, holding that judges, not arbitrators, determine issues of arbitrability (Nathan Robinson, et al. v. Home Owners Management Enterprises Inc., No. 18-0504, Texas Sup., 2019 Tex. LEXIS 1170).
RICHMOND, Texas — A woman says in a lawsuit filed in state court on Oct. 21 that the builder of her home was negligent for failing to inform her about a burst polyethylene pipe (PEX) that caused a flood in the master bedroom, improperly remediating mold that later grew in the house and starting a fire during the remediation of the mold (Carmen Melillo v. Perry Homes LLC, NO. 19-DCV-267788, Texas Dist., 434th Jud. Dist., Fort Bend Co., 2019 TX. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 313745).
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The Florida Supreme Court on Nov. 12 refused to accept jurisdiction over D.R. Horton Inc. – Jacksonville’s request for review of an appeals court’s ruling affirming the admissibility of two experts’ opinions about construction defects and repair recommendations, thus cementing a condominium owners’ association’s $9.6 million verdict (D.R. Horton Inc. – Jacksonville v. Heron’s Landing Condominium Association of Jacksonville Inc., No. SC19-352, Fla. Sup., 2019 Fla. LEXIS 1935).
OKLAHOMA CITY — The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Nov. 14 issued a mandate stating that it would not review an appeals court panel’s ruling affirming the dismissal of plaintiffs’ negligence claim against the owner of a construction company they hired to build their home (Lana Tyree, et al. v. Brent Cornman, et al., No. 115,866, Okla. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — The subsequent owner of a home filed a lawsuit in California state court on Nov. 4 accusing the contractor who built the roof deck on the home of construction defects, claiming that the improper sloping of the deck allowed water to infiltrate the house, damage the master bedroom and allow for mold growth (Jeffrey Salchow v. Universal Developing Inc., et al., No. CGC-19-580530, Calif. Super., San Francisco Co., 2019 CA. Sup. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 8869).
CARSON CITY, Nev. — A homeowners association asked the Nevada Supreme Court on Oct. 29 to review a trial court judge’s Oct. 2 decision to award summary judgment to the developer and contractors who constructed rock walls in a development on the ground that the lawsuit is barred by the state’s six-year statute of repose (Somersett Owners Association v. Somersett Development Co. Ltd., et al., No. 79921, Nev. Sup.).
DELAND, Fla. — A woman says in a lawsuit filed Nov. 7 in Florida state court that the contractor she hired to replace her roof was negligent and breached the terms of the contract between the parties because the improper installation of the roof allowed for water intrusion that damaged the interior of her home (Jody Brown v. Florida Interstate Roofing Co. LLC, No. 2019-18042 CODL , Fla. Cir., 7th Dist., Volusia Co.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A woman on Oct. 25 sued a contractor she hired to renovate a four-unit residential building in California state court, complaining that the defendant’s failure to properly cover the roof during the project allowed for rainfall to enter the building, causing extensive damage to the interior and necessitating temporary housing for the tenants (Nancy Oey v. AMC Construction Inc., No. CGC-19-580298, Calif. Super., San Francisco Co., 2019 Cal. Sup. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 8639).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A couple sued a general contractor and a subcontractor in Delaware state court on Nov. 6, claiming that they did not discover that construction defects were allowing water to infiltrate their home and cause significant damage and that they were “blatantly ignorant” of the problem until a contractor discovered it in August (Ryan Altenbaugh, et al. v. Benchmark Builders Inc., et al., No. N19C-11-046, Del. Super., New Castle Co.).
MINNEAPOLIS — A federal judge in Minnesota on Nov. 4 granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the makers of windows that allegedly became prematurely cloudy and the local distributor of the windows, finding that a couple failed to sufficiently allege that the defendants misled them about the warranty on the product (Dean R. Anderson, et al. v. 139957 Ontario Ltd., et al., No. 18-CV-1672, D. Minn., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190608).
RICHMOND, Va. — A panel of the Virginia Supreme Court on Oct. 31 reversed a trial court judge’s ruling that a family and property owner could not pursue breach of contract claims against a builder accused of failing to install weatherproofing on a home that led to water intrusion and mold growth, finding that a second amended complaint sufficiently alleged an agency relationship between the plaintiffs and that the property owner was an intended third-party beneficiary to the construction contract (George Tingler, et al. v. Graystone Homes Inc., No. 180791, Va. Sup., 2019 Va. LEXIS 138).
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The Florida Supreme Court on Oct. 16 denied a church’s request to review an appeals panel’s ruling affirming summary judgment awards to contractors that allegedly improperly installed stucco and roof flashing that resulted in water intrusion after finding that the church’s suit was barred by the four-year statute of limitations (Covenant Baptist Church Inc., et al. v. Vasallo Construction Inc., et al., No. SC19-1048, Fla. Sup.).
MACON, Ga. — A federal jury in Georgia on Oct. 10 awarded $14,320 to a couple who sued a construction company and the couple that owns it after the defendants failed to respond to notifications regarding construction defects, finding that the construction company was liable for breach of contract and that the owners of the company were liable for $4,000 in expenses (Jack Thomas, et al. v. Jerry Sheffield, et al., No. 18-cv-291, M.D. Ga.).
HOUSTON — A man sued the builder of his home in Texas state court on Oct. 21, claiming that the company violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) by failing to honor a warranty claim he submitted regarding defective stucco and excessive moisture levels in the home (Philip Iheme v. Kavac LLC, et al., No. 2019-76959, Texas Dist., Harris Co.).