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).
ATLANTA — A federal judge in Georgia on June 8 awarded summary judgment to Atlas Corp. after finding that an Ohio man was unable to show that an alleged defect in the shingles installed on his home caused a leak that required the roof to be replaced (In re Atlas Roofing Corp. Chalet Shingle Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2495, Brian David Seltzer, et al. v. Atlas Roofing Corp., No. 13cv4217, N.D. Ga., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96545).
CHICAGO — A couple seeking to lead a putative class action suit against the builder of 46 homes can pursue claims for breach of contract over the defendant company’s use of 25-year shingles and wood veneer cabinets, a federal judge in Illinois ruled June 6, holding that the materials were not of the same substantial quality as those promised in purchase agreement (Paul Smith, et al. v. NVR Inc., No. 17 C 8328, N.D. Ill., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94712).
WILMINGTON, Del. — Homeowners and their insurer filed an amended complaint on June 1 in a Delaware trial court against a general contractor allegedly responsible for the defective installation of a solar panel system for their home (Domenic P. DiStefano, et al. v. KW Solar Solutions Inc., et al., No. N16C-11-015, Del. Super.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A federal judge in Delaware on May 29 recommended denying a couple’s motion to remand their lawsuit seeking to vacate or amend a $17,500 arbitration award they obtained from their home warranty provider and its insurer, finding that complete diversity exists between the parties and that the plaintiffs do not state the amount in controversy in their complaint (Jason Jones, et al. v. Home Buyers Warranty, et al., No. 17-773-JFB,SRF, D. Del., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88908).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California trial court erred when granting a plaintiff’s motion to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement with the manufacturer of allegedly defective windows, a state appeals panel ruled May 24, holding that none of the settling parties had consented to the agreement in court or in a signed writing as required by California law (Theresa Teuma v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., et al., No. A149733, Calif. App., 1st Dist., 2nd Div., 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3631).
CARSON CITY, Nev.— Construction defects claims brought by 49 homeowners against the entities that developed their homes are subject to arbitration, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled May 24, holding that arbitration provisions in the sales agreements are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and conscionable under Nevada law (U.S. Home Corp., et al. La Harris, et al., No. 68025, Nev. Sup., 2018 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 460).
CARSON CITY, Nev. — The Nevada Supreme Court on May 24 overturned a lower court judge’s ruling awarding summary judgment to a general contractor on a homeowners’ association’s negligence claim, holding that it is unclear if an expert’s report adequately disclosed defects in the construction of the condominium complex when it was sold by the developer to the declarant (Regent at Town Centre Homeowners’ Association v. Oxbow Construction LLC, Nos. 69777, 70296, Nev. Sup., 2018 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 462).
TRENTON, N.J. — A condominium association on May 11 filed a lawsuit in New Jersey state court accusing an engineering firm and a contractor hired to replace breezeway decking of failing to properly install the new decking material despite the engineer’s knowledge that quarter-inch sloping was needed underneath the new material to prevent water from pooling on the deck surface (Lawrence Square Village II Condominium Association v. Kipcon Inc., et al., No. MER-L-001038-18, N.J. Super., Mercer Co.).
DOVER, Del. — A Delaware judge on May 22 awarded summary judgment to a general contractor accused of defectively constructing a group home for adults with cerebral palsy, finding that the suit was barred by the three-year statute of limitations because the construction contract stated when any possible claims would begin to accrue (Black Diamond Hope House Inc., et al. v. U&I Investments LLC, et al., No. K15C-12-034 JJC, Del. Super., Kent Co.).
GEORGETOWN, Del. — A couple sued the general contractor they hired to build an addition on their Rehoboth Beach, Del., home in Delaware state court on May 22, claiming that the builder’s negligence when installing the foundation, footers and framing have caused the structure to pull away from the existing home (Dennis Runsten, et al. v. Burton Builders LLC, No. S18C-05-025, Del. Super., Sussex Co.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A subcontractor who installed the windows in a man’s home says in a May 18 motion for summary judgment filed in Delaware state court that there is no evidence that his work caused water intrusion that has prevented a man from selling his home (Gary Loh v. Muirfield Associates LLC, et al., No. N16C-09-234, Del. Super., New Castle Co.).
BEAUFORT, S.C. — A federal judge in South Carolina held that a roofing subcontractor can face a general contractor’s third-party claim of gross negligence for moisture intrusion that occurred at a golf clubhouse and community clubhouse due to a lack of flashing because there is evidence that there is evidence that the subcontractor supplied roofing material and flashing (Hampton Hall LLC v. Chapman Coyle Chapman & Associates Architects AIA Inc., et al., No. 17-1575-RMG, D. S.C., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84502).
CLEVELAND — An Ohio couple filed a lawsuit in state court on May 16 against the maker of shingles that were installed on their home, claiming that they were defective because they allowed the roof to leak, causing damage to their kitchen (Blanche Forman, et al. v. IKO Industries Inc., No. CV 18 897861, Ohio Comm. Pls., Cuyahoga Co.).
HARTFORD, Conn. — A Connecticut judge on April 20 dismissed a homeowners association’s claims against four subcontractors accused of construction defects, finding that it lacked standing because the subcontractors were not provided with proper presuit notification (Sherwood Falls Homeowners Association Inc. v. CIL Development of Kensington Inc., et al., No. X07HHDCV166086133S, Conn. Super., Hartford Dist., 2018 Conn. Super. LEXIS 805).