Casey, et al. v. Watt Inland Empire, et al.
Published: Dec. 13, 1997 | Result Date: Jun. 27, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: RCV09133 – $0
Judge
Court
San Bernardino Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
Plaintiffs are twelve homeowners who brought a construction defect case against the developer, general contractor and several subcontractors. After settling with the developer, general contractor and all subcontractors except cross-defendant Overhead Door, plaintiffs proceeded to trial on June 2, 1997. Overhead Door manufactured the window frames and panels installed in plaintiffs' homes. The plaintiffs contended the windows were defectively designed. At trial, plaintiffs asked for $524,034.55 in damages which, they claimed, was equal to the cost to remove and replace every window in every home. Overhead Door's first motion in limine sought to exclude the testimony of the cost estimator because the cost of repair and replacement of the product were economic losses which were not compensable. The deposition of plaintiffs' cost estimator established that this was the only measure of damages plaintiffs were prepared to introduce at trial.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $500,000. The defendants made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $30,000.
Damages
The plaintiffs alleged $524,034.55 for cost of repair and replacement.
Result
Overhead Door specifically briefed the recent decision, Fieldstone Company v. Briggs Plumbing (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 357. This case, along with the case of Zamora v. Shell Oil Company (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 204, which came down even closer to the date of trial, made it clear that the economic loss doctrine as set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval (1986) 476 US 858, should be applied in California in the very type of case before the trial court. Both Fieldstone v. Briggs and Zamora v. Shell Oil are "construction defect" cases which involve a manufactured product which either the homeowner or the developer claimed was defective. Only one appellate court in California has, to date, ruled on the applicability of the East River economic loss doctrine. Overhead Door's motion in limine was granted, resulting in a nonsuit.
Other Information
The decision was reached approximately two years and ten months after the case was filed. Pursuant to C.C.P. º998 and 1021.1, which is operative in San Bernardino and Riverside, Overhead Door was awarded a judgment for its attorney fees and expert costs in the sum of $159,643.86. POST TRIAL MOTIONS: Plaintiffs have filed an appeal.
Length
one day
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390