NEW ORLEANS — Four former directors and operators of the Make It Right Foundation (MIR), which was founded by Brad Pitt for the purpose of rebuilding homes in the Lower Ninth Ward that were destroyed as a result of Hurricane Katrina, on Oct. 31 moved for dismissal from a proposed class action, arguing that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims against them (Lloyd Francis, et al. v. Make It Right-New Orleans LLC, et al., No. 18-cv-09906, E.D. La.).
ORLANDO, Fla. — A property owner sued the builder of a school on Oct. 4 in Florida state court, arguing that the defendant improperly installed concrete masonry units (CMUs) and that its failure to comply with the Florida Building Code constituted a breach of the construction contract (Cameron Avenue Charter Property LLC v. Summit Construction Management LLC, No. 2018-CA-010929, Fla. Cir., Orange Co.).
WAUSAU, Wis. — A Wisconsin appellate panel on Oct. 29 affirmed a lower court’s ruling awarding summary judgment to a contractor that installed a roof on a Kmart Corp. store that later partially collapsed, finding that the retailer’s negligence claim was barred by the economic-loss doctrine and that its claims were untimely (Kmart Corp. v. Herzog Roofing Inc., No. 2017AP1041, Wis. App., 3rd Dist., 2018 Wisc. App. LEXIS 842).
TAMPA, Fla. — A Florida couple sued the builder of their Riverview, Fla., home in state court on Oct. 26, claiming that the company’s improper installation of the stucco on the building violated the Florida Building Code and caused damage to the structure (Benito Figueroa, et al. v. Centex Homes, No. 18-CV-010555, Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Co.).
DENVER — A federal magistrate judge in Colorado on Oct. 22 recommended denying a couple’s motion to dismiss another couple’s lawsuit accusing them of failing to disclose construction defects in a home they purchased that resulted in water intrusion and the growth of black mold, finding that the sellers’ failure to inform the buyers that renovations were done without building permits could be considered latent defects that could not be discovered within the limitations period (Steven Hardy, et al. v. Mervin J. Flood, et al., No. 17-cv-00677, D. Colo., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182168).
TRENTON, N.J. — A group of consumers on Oct. 26 asked a federal judge in New Jersey to approve a $43.5 million settlement to resolve claims that cross-linked polyethylene (PEX) plumbing systems made by NIBCO Inc. are defective because they fail prematurely, causing water leaks (Kimberly Cole, et al. v. NIBCO Inc., No. 13-7871, D. N.J.).
MADISON, Wis. — A Wisconsin appeals panel on Oct. 18 reversed a trial court judge’s ruling denying an architect’s motion to compel arbitration with a couple accusing him of fraudulently inducing them to enter into a design consultant agreement with his company, finding that their claims are subject to the provision (Thomas Zimmer Builders LLC v. Kurt E. Roots, et al., No. 2017AP2037, Wis. App., 4th Dist., 2018 Wisc. App. LEXIS 818).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Oct. 17 ordered an appeals court panel to conduct a de novo review of a ruling in a construction defects lawsuit where the judge presiding over a bench trial retired and no other judge could prepare a supplemental opinion to explain his decision to award $748,287.67 to a couple who complained that the windows installed in their home were defective (Leo J. Dolan Jr. v. Hurd Millwork Co. Inc., et al., No. 51 MAP 2017, Pa. Sup., 2018 Pa. LEXIS 5463).
ALBANY, N.Y. — A federal judge in New York on Oct. 22 dismissed a class action suit accusing a manufacturer of selling siding that prematurely faded from sunlight reflecting off of windows, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims because they did not sufficiently allege that the defendant company had a substantial connection with the state (Clement Gazzillo, et al. v. Ply Gem Industries Inc., et al., No. 17-CV-1077, N.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180303).
MIAMI — A Florida man on Oct. 8 sued Daikin Applied Americas Inc. in state court, claiming that defects in the air conditioning unit manufacturer’s product cause premature corrosion in the copper tubing, resulting in refrigerant leaks, and that the company failed to disclose the flaw to consumers despite its knowledge of the defect (Alain J. Viergutz v. Daikin Applied Americas Inc., No. 2018-CA-34044, Fla. 11th Jud. Cir., Miami-Dade Co.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — The trustees of a living trust on Oct. 12 sued the builder of their home in Delaware state court, claiming that the stucco facade on their home allows for water infiltration (Parikh Living Trust v. Louis Capano & Associates Inc., No. N18C-10-157, Del. Super.).
TAMPA, Fla. — A homebuilder’s installation of stucco on a Florida home was defective because it allowed for water intrusion that caused damage to the interior walls and because it did not conform with the Florida Building Codes Act, a couple says in a lawsuit filed Oct. 9 in state court (Wenford Coleman, et al. v. Centex Homes, No. 2018-CA-009880, Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Co.).
BARTOW, Fla. — A Florida couple sued KB Home Orlando LLC in state court on Oct. 10, claiming that the improper installation of the stucco on their home violated the Florida Building Codes Act (Martin Guthrie, et al. v. KB Home Orlando LLC, No. 2018-CA-004066, Fla. Cir., Polk Co.).
URBANA, Ill. — Plaintiffs claiming that organic asphalt shingles manufactured by IKO Manufacturing Inc. that prematurely deteriorate before the expiration of their 30-year warranty on Oct. 4 moved for approval of a settlement worth approximately $30 million that would resolve the litigation (In re: IKO Roofing Shingle Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2104, Case No. 09-md-2104, C.D. Ill.).
NEW ORLEANS — A federal judge in Louisiana on Oct. 3 denied a couple’s motion to remand their lawsuit seeking damages for Chinese-made drywall that was installed in their home following Hurricane Katrina, finding that they improperly joined their insurer as a defendant (Cedric Richmond, et al. v. National Gypsum Services Co., No. 17-7453, E.D. La., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170814).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A California appeals panel on Sept. 7 upheld a ruling awarding summary judgment to the builder and developer of a residential community consisting of 184 high-end homes that allegedly have construction defects, holding that the developer’s control of the homeowners association’s board of directors did not toll the Right to Repair Act’s (RRA) 10-year statute of limitations (Waterfront Community Association v. PLC Waterfront LLC, et al., No. G054235, Calif. App., 4th Dist., 3rd Div., 2018 Calif. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6134).
ORLANDO, Fla. — The owner of a restaurant says in a Sept. 20 lawsuit filed in Florida state court against a company that constructed a building it purchased that it will incur more than $75,000 in damages to repair defects it discovered while renovating the building (Resilient Restaurants LLC v. Mulligan Constructors Inc., No. 2018-CA-010309, Fla. Cir., Orange Co.).
SEATTLE — Plaintiffs seeking certification of a statewide class in Washington for residents whose homes have shingles made by Certainteed Corp. that suffer from premature granule loss say in an Oct. 1 reply brief filed in federal court that two rulings from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals show that consumer protection claims involving a defective product are well-suited for class treatment (Paula Wetzel, et al. v. Certainteed Corp., No. 16cv01160, W.D. Wash.).
LAS VEGAS — A federal judge in Nevada on Oct. 1 denied a homeowners association’s emergency motion to amend its complaint to add a claim for declaratory judgment, holding that the request was procedurally defective and that the request to add the claim was not an emergency because discovery is not scheduled to end until December 2019 (Azure Manor/Rancho De Paz Homeowners Association v. D.R. Horton Inc., No. 14-cv-02222-JCM-NJK, D. Nev.).
CHICAGO — An Illinois appeals court panel on Sept. 28 upheld rulings awarding summary judgment to a developer and municipality, finding that a couple who complained that the defendants breached the terms of an annexation agreement lacked standing to bring their claims because they were not subsequent purchasers of the land and were not intended beneficiaries to the agreement (Patricia Doyle, et al. v. Tinley Park, et al., No. 1-17-0357, Ill. App., 1st Dist., 2nd Div., 2018 Ill. App. LEXIS 716).