Facts

The owners of 56 homes in Eastvale filed suit against Centex Homes.

The trial of the case was bifurcated. The second phase of the case is currently set for trial in January 2016. At that time, plaintiffs' claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and violation of Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq. (i.e., unfair competition) will be tried.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs claimed there were defects in various systems of the homes. In particular, plaintiffs alleged that the soils, foundations, and structural framing suffered from major defects. Plaintiffs alleged that the foundations of each home needed to be replaced and the roofs had to be removed to perform structural framing repairs. Plaintiffs estimated cost of repairs to be over $24 million.

Plaintiffs asserted violations of the Right To Repair Act (Civil Code section 895 et seq) breach of contract, breaches of express and implied warranties, and negligence. Plaintiffs also alleges fraud and unfair business practices, arising out of, among other things, forged plans used by Centex Homes in construction of the homes, and Centex Homes' use of unlicensed subcontractors and professionals. The court bifurcated plaintiffs' claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair competition claims.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Centex alleged that the homes did not suffer from any major defects and that a few, minor issues with the foundations and framing could be repaired for minimum amounts. Centex estimated cost of repairs to be approximately $211,000. Centex also contended that it was owed indemnity by the concrete contractor and the framing contractor for any repair costs associated with their work.

Result

The jury found that there was no need to replace foundations and that only minor repairs were necessary. The jury awarded an average of $3,689 per house, totaling $206,600.

Other Information

Plaintiffs reached settlements with a number of other cross-defendants in the total amount of approximately $200,000 prior to the start of trial. The trial was paperless. All exhibits, plaintiffs identified over eleven thousand and defense identified over four thousand exhibits, were presented to the jury electronically. Mediations with three separate mediators were unsuccessful. FILING DATE: June 1, 2010.

Deliberation

six weeks

Length

five months