EDINBURG, Texas — A trial court judge did not abuse her discretion when denying a contractor’s third-party lawsuit against a supplier of allegedly defective beams, a Texas appeals court ruled July 26, holding that the contractor failed to provide good cause for its delay in prosecuting its claims against the defendant (Laguna Madre Construction Inc. v. Hope Lumber & Supply Co., No. 13-17-00263-CV, Texas App., 13th Dist., 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 5738).
COLUMBUS, Ohio — A builder of custom homes on July 27 was ordered by a federal magistrate judge in Ohio to produce four categories of documents regarding sales of homes that were built with joists that contained a flame retardant that allegedly emits levels of formaldehyde that renders homes uninhabitable because the information is relevant to a plaintiff couple’s claims that homes with the joists suffer from a diminution in value (Jamal Coleman, et al. v. Westport Homes Inc., No. 18-mc-31, S.D. Ohio, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125702).
FRESNO, Calif. — A California appeals panel on July 23 reversed an order denying Lennar Fresno Inc.’s motion to dismiss a construction defects lawsuit, finding that the service of the complaint was not impossible, impracticable and futile (Lennar Fresno Inc. v. Superior Court of Fresno County, No. F077256, Calif. App., 5th Dist., 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5010).
PHILADELPHIA — A Pennsylvania appeals panel on July 16 rejected a couple’s request to reverse a ruling ordering them to arbitrate their claims against Toll Brothers Inc. over alleged construction defects, finding that the decision did not violate their right to due process and that the plaintiffs could always appeal the decision of the arbitrator (Eric Kunz, et al. v. Toll Brothers Inc., et al., No. 3107 EDA 2017, Pa. Super., 2018 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2502).
CANTON, Ohio — A federal bankruptcy court judge in Ohio on July 5 denied a woman’s motion for summary judgment seeking a ruling that a roofing contractor’s debt is not dischargeable, finding that too many disputes exist as to whether the contractor willfully breached the work agreement and whether he intended to deceive the plaintiff (Rene Lincicome v. Anthony Roofing LLC, et al., Adversary Proceeding No. 17-6024, N.D. Ohio Bkcy., 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 2032).
GEORGETOWN, Del. — A motion to dismiss filed by a contractor accused of negligently installing an addition’s footers, foundation and framing is procedurally defective because it was submitted after he answered the complaint, a couple says in an opposition brief filed July 16 in Delaware state court (Dennis Runsten, et al. v. Burton Builders LLC, No. S18C-05-025, Del. Super., Sussex Co.).
ALLENTOWN, Pa. — A man’s lawsuit against Pella Corp. over allegedly defective windows was dismissed by a federal judge in Pennsylvania on July 11 after he found that the plaintiff was warned July 2 that failure to respond to the motion would result in dismissal (Edward Melhem v. Pella Corp., No. 18-cv-2007, E.D. Pa., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116607).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on July 9 dismissed two of the three third-party claims an interior design firm brought against a renovation contractor and a home automation design and installation firm after finding that the design firm could only pursue a cause of action for implied contractual indemnification (Stefan Matzinger, et al. v. MAC II LLC, et al., No. 17cv4813, S.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113612).
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Supreme Court on June 29 overturned a trial court judge’s denial of a general contractor’s summary judgment motion, finding that a homeowners association’s lawsuit is barred by the state’s statute of repose because an amended complaint filed more than six years after construction of the homes was completed did not relate back to the original filing (The Gables and Villas at River Oaks Homeowners Association v. Castlewood Builders LLC, No. 20161075, Utah Sup., 2018 Utah LEXIS 80).
RALEIGH, N.C. — A federal bankruptcy court judge in North Carolina on June 25 granted a masonry subcontractor’s motion for summary judgment on a general contractor’s claim for contractual indemnity, finding that the general contractor was unable to provide sufficient evidence to show that its alleged damages stemmed from work outside the scope of the subcontractor’s contractual duties and that the contractor failed to present adequate evidence of proximate causation (In re: New Bern Riverfront Development LLC, Case No. 09-10340-8-SWH, Adversary Proceeding No. 10-00023-AP, E.D. N.C. Bkcy., 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 1923).
BOSTON — A federal judge in Massachusetts on June 8 dismissed a class action suit against the makers of Oasis brand decking after being informed by counsel that the parties had reached a settlement (Anthony Pagliaroni, et al. v. Mastic Home Exteriors Inc., et al., No. 12-10164-DJC, D. Mass.).
TRENTON, N.J. — A federal judge in New Jersey on June 20 dismissed a lawsuit brought by two women against the maker of white cedar shingles that allegedly prematurely warped and developed mold before the expiration of their 50-year warranty, stating that the case has been settled (Ilene Stern, et al. v. Maibec Inc., No. 11-3951, D. N.J.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal judge in Virginia overseeing lawsuits stemming from flooring sold by Lumber Liquidators Inc. that contained excessive levels of formaldehyde and suits contending that the company’s flooring prematurely scratched, chipped, warped and stained on June 15 preliminarily approved a $36 million settlement to resolve the litigations (In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Laminate Flooring Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2627, No. 15-md-2627, In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Laminate Flooring Durability Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL 2743, No. 16-md-2743, E.D. Va.).
MORRISTOWN, N.J. — A New Jersey state court jury on June 6 awarded $4.9 million to the owners of a tennis center that partially collapsed in 2014, finding that the general contractor, the company that provided pre-engineered steel for the building and the company that erected the building were liable for construction defects and professional negligence (Grand Slam Partners LLC, et al. v. Adkins Group Inc., et al., No. MRS-L-2984-13, N.J. Super., Morris Co.).
PITTSBURGH — A couple’s claims for breach of warranty and breach of contract survived motions to dismiss filed by the builder of their custom home and the manufacturer of the windows after a federal judge in Pennsylvania on June 18 found that the repair doctrine could be applied to make the claims timely (Craig Zemba, et al. v. NVR Inc., et al., No. 17-986, W.D. Pa., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101093).
CLEVELAND — A woman says in a lawsuit filed June 18 in Ohio state court that Atlas Roofing Corp. should replace the shingles she had installed on her roof in 2002 because their defective design allows them to absorb moisture and then blister and crack long before the expiration of the product’s 30-year warranty (Katie Burton v. Atlas Roofing Corp., No. CV 18 899593, Ohio Comm. Pls., Cuyahoga Co.).
ORLANDO, Fla. — Centex Real Estate Co. LLC on June 11 removed a class action suit accusing the builder and contractors of improperly installing the stucco on 137 homes in an Apopka, Fla., development, arguing that the federal court has jurisdiction over the case under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) because the proposed class seeks more than $5 million in damages (Emerson Park Homeowners Association Inc., et al. v. Brett Lundequam, et al., No. 18-CV-913-ORL-37-DCI, M.D. Fla.).
BALTIMORE— A couple sued Jeld-Wen Inc. in Maryland federal court June 11 claiming that the company breached the terms of a June 2015 settlement agreement when replacing and repairing defective windows in their home with more defective windows (Carl J. Schramm, et al. v. Jeld-Wen Inc, No. 18-cv-01716, D. Md.).
ATLANTA — A federal judge in Georgia overseeing litigation over allegedly defective roofing shingles awarded summary judgment to the product’s manufacturer on June 8, finding that the shingles’ limited warranty does not apply to a condominium association because it was the third owner of the property (In re Atlas Roofing Corp. Chalet Shingle Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2495, Stratford Club Condominium Association v. Atlas Roofing Corp., No. 14cv1071, N.D. Ga., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96547).
ATLANTA — A Kentucky man’s lawsuit against the manufacturer of Chalet-brand roofing shingles cannot pursue claims based on the company’s alleged breach of express and implied warranties for the product, a federal judge in Georgia ruled June 8, holding that the man failed to properly transfer the warranty after purchasing the home from the original owner and that the company did not waive its right to enforce the warranty (In re Atlas Roofing Corp. Chalet Shingle Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2495, Bryan Makowski, et al. v. Atlas Roofing Corp., No. 14-cv-3034, N.D. Ga., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96543).