TAMPA, Fla. — A man sued the builder of his Gibsonton, Fla., home in Florida state court on Aug. 7, claiming that the stucco installed on his home did not satisfy the Florida Building Code or American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards, resulting in water intrusion and damage (Aaron Kater v. KB Home Tampa LLC, No. 2017-CA-007387, Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Co.).
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas — A Texas appeals panel on Aug. 3 affirmed a trial court judge’s ruling denying a contractor’s motion to compel arbitration in a construction defects suit brought by an association of unit owners, finding that the association was not an assignee or successor to the developer (G.T. Leach Builders, LLC v. Sapphire Condominiums Association Inc., No. 13-16-00293-CV, Texas App., 13th Dist., 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 7367).
FORT WORTH, Texas — A Fort Worth church and the contractor who installed a roof membrane system that subsequently leaked must arbitrate their claims with Dow Roofing Systems LLC, the maker of the membrane, a Texas appeals panel ruled Aug. 3, holding that the limited warranty provided by Dow to the church and the applicator agreement between Dow and the contractor each had enforceable arbitration provisions (Dow Roofing Systems LLC v. Great Commission Baptist Church, et al., No. 02-16-00395-CV, Texas App., 2nd Dist., 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 7370).
NEW PORT RICHEY, Fla. — A man filed a lawsuit in Florida state court on Aug. 1 claiming that the improper installation of stucco on his home by the builder and a number of subcontractors caused moisture intrusion that decreased the value of the property and caused damage (Eugenio Lora v. Lennar Homes, et al., No. 2017-CA-002453, Fla. Cir., Pasco Co.).
WARREN, Ohio — An Ohio appeals panel on July 31 affirmed a municipal court judge’s ruling to deny a woman’s request for relief from a judgment in favor of a contractor accused of negligently installing a drain pipe, holding that two photographs the woman produced in support of her request were not newly discovered evidence (Ann Karnofel v. Dan Nye, No. 2016-T-0119, Ohio App., 11th Dist., 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 3152).
ORLANDO, Fla. — A Florida couple filed a lawsuit in state court on July 20 against the builder of their home, claiming that its improper installation of stucco violated the Florida Building Code and resulted in cracks (Mabel Rojas, et al. v. KB Home Orlando LLC, No. 2017-CA-006631, Fla. Cir, Orange Co.).
SEATTLE — A federal judge in Washington on July 31 denied a motion to dismiss a couple’s lawsuit against the manufacturer of a water filtration system that leaked in their home and allowed them to amend their complaint to add two other companies involved in the manufacturing of the product after finding that they sufficiently stated claims under the Washington Products Liability Act (WPLA) (Larry Frisvold, et al. v. Pentair Filtration Solutions LLC, et al., No. C17-136-RSL, W.D. Wash., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119939).
PORTLAND, Ore. — An association of condominium owners provided sufficient evidence to show that a company’s defective valves and couplings in hot water storage tanks for kitchen sinks and dishwashers damaged their potable water supply when releasing black particles that contained possible carcinogens, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled July 25 (Benson Tower Condominium Owners Association v. Victaulic Company, No. 15-35119, 9th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13447).
CHICAGO — A man who claims that Home Depot Inc. is violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) when selling lumber that does not measure to its advertised specifications says in a July 21 brief filed in Illinois federal court that his allegations sufficiently state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12b(6) (Mikhail Abramov v. Home Depot Inc., No. 17-cv-01860, N.D. Ill.).
ABERDEEN, Miss. — A Mississippi federal judge on July 21 granted an insurer summary judgment in a declaratory action against two victims of a deck collapse, saying there is no injury or damage caused by an occurrence under the policy and therefore no duty to defend a subcontractor who built the deck (Employers Mutual Casualty Company v. Brytni West, et al., No. 16-4, N.D. Miss., Aberdeen Div., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113951).
GREEN COVE SPRINGS, Fla. — A man filed suit in Florida state court on July 24 against the builder of his home, claiming that the company as well as the painting and stucco subcontractors it hired are liable for damage to his home caused by an improperly installed stucco system (Saulo O. Meneses v. KB Home Jacksonville LLC, No. 2017-CA-743, Fla. Cir., Clay Co.).
CHARLESTON, S.C. — The federal judge in South Carolina overseeing litigation stemming from two models of Pella Corp. windows that are allegedly defective denied the manufacturer’s request to deny certification in all remaining class action suits in the multidistrict litigation on July 21, holding that there are issues in the suits that would need to be briefed (In re: Pella Corporation Architect and Designer Series Windows Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 14-mn-00001-DCN, D. S.C., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114223).
ORLANDO, Fla. — Pulte Home Corp. moved for summary judgment in Florida federal court on July 21, arguing that purchasers of homes with stucco that was improperly installed are not entitled to damages because they knew of the defect at the time they purchased their homes (Shaun Gazzara, et al. v. Pulte Home Corporation, No. 16-cv-657-Orl-31TBS, M.D. Fla.).
ORLANDO, Fla. — A Florida judge on June 26 granted a homeowners’ association’s motion to stay proceedings in a construction defects suit until November based on the association’s representation that it is seeking to settle the action with the builder (Somerset Chase Homeowners Association Inc. v. CalAtlantic Group Inc., et al., No. 2017-CA-005546-O, Fla. Cir., Orange Co.).
TAMPA, Fla. — A Florida woman filed a lawsuit in state court against the builder of her home on July 20, claiming that the stucco on the home was improperly applied in violation of the Florida Building Code (Tammy Marie Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corporation, No. 17-CA-006860, Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Co.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — A homeowners association’s claims against the subcontractors who designed and installed driveways that were allegedly too steep and cracked prematurely were properly dismissed as untimely, a South Carolina Court of Appeals panel ruled July 19 (Rivergate Homeowners’ Association v. WW & LB Development Company LLC, et al., No. 2015-00248, S.C. App., 2017 S.C. App. Unpub. LEXIS 328).
SEATTLE — A settlement agreement between a property owner and a construction company did not bar the owner’s claim for breach of contract for failure to adhere to standard good building practices, a Washington appellate panel ruled July 17, holding that the agreement resolved only issues stemming from a lien the contractor put on the building (620 LLC v. Meridian Inc., d/b/a Meridian Construction, No. 75331-2-I, Wash. App., 1st Div., 2017 Wash. App. LEXIS 1664).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A jury’s verdict finding that the manufacturer of fiber cement siding was 10 percent liable for $2.5 million in water intrusion damages at a townhome development on the ground that the company’s product did not perform as an ordinary consumer would have expected was not inconsistent with the jury’s other conclusion that the product was not negligently designed, a California appellate panel ruled July 10 (Riverview Townhomes Owner’s Association v. James Hardie Building Products Inc., No. C078252, Calif. App., 3rd Dist., 2017 Calif. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4673).
ATLANTA — The manufacturer of roofing shingles that are allegedly defective as a result of premature deterioration filed a motion for summary judgment in Georgia federal court on July 11 asserting that a man lacks sufficient causation evidence to support his remaining claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraudulent concealment and declaratory relief (In re: Atlas Roofing Corporation Chalet Shingle Products liability Litigation, MDL 2495, Michael Mazza, et al. v. Atlas Roofing Corporation, No. 13-CV-4218-TWT, N.D. Ga.).
CHICAGO — A proposed class of consumers who claimed that windows made by Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co. were defective because they allowed for water intrusion that caused property damage forfeited their ability to challenge a ruling by a federal judge barring the testimony of two experts, a Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled July 11, explaining that the plaintiffs should have raised their arguments in response to the manufacturer’s motion under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Mary Haley, et al. v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., No. 16-3192, 7th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12381).