Burch v. Superior Court

6 Citing briefs

  1. McMILLIN ALBANY v. S.C.

    Amicus Curiae Brief of Kasdan Lippsmith Weber Turner LLP

    Filed August 22, 2016

    Id. at 604. The notion that SB800 had impliedly “abrogated common law claims for damages for construction defects” was again rejected, this time by the Second District in the context of a direct homeowner action against a builder, in Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1415, review denied (June 11, 2014). The Second District vacated summary adjudication as to the homeowner’scausesofaction for common law negligence and breach of implied warranty (id. at 1423), holding that SB800 “does not provide the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects that have resulted in property damage”(id.

  2. McMILLIN ALBANY v. S.C.

    Amicus Curiae Brief of MWI, Inc.

    Filed August 22, 2016

    (Greystone, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 1216, fn. 14.) Where SB 800 and the common law overlap, the claimant may pursueeither or both claims, which is consistent with the holding in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (Liberty Mutual). (See also Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1414 [“We hold that the Right to Repair Act does not provide the exclusive remedy for a homeownerseeking damagesfor construction defects that have resulted in property damage,as here”]; id. at pp. 1417-1418.) B. The Legislature would not refer to “claims” for “strict liability” in section 936 ifSB 800 had preempted them. Courts interpret statutory language in light of its usual meaning.

  3. McMILLIN ALBANY v. S.C.

    Amicus Curiae Brief of Leading Builders of America

    Filed July 29, 2016

    This case has resulted in confusion, uncertainty, and unnecessary expense. Moreover, in another Court of Appeal decision, Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1411, the Second District Court of Appeal blindly, and without any analysis, extended the holding ofLiberty Mutual. LBA members have seen these decisionsresult in volleys of new lawsuits and a frenzy of law and motion and appellate work, much ofwhich has produced contrary and inconsistent rulings.

  4. McMILLIN ALBANY v. S.C.

    Amicus Curiae Brief of California Infill Federation, California Building Industry Association, and Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation

    Filed July 29, 2016

    This case has resulted in confusion, uncertainty, and unnecessary expense. Moreover, in another Court of Appeal decision, Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (‘Burch’), the Second District Court of Appeal blindly, and without any analysis, extended the holding of Liberty Mutual Amici Curiae members report that litigation over the viability of the -20- Right to Repair Act has resulted in a frenzy of law and motion and appellate work, much of which has produced contrary and inconsistent rulings. Ironically, litigation over the viability of the Right to Repair Act is now at an all-time high throughout the State of California.

  5. McMILLIN ALBANY v. S.C.

    Petitioners’ Answer Brief on the Merits

    Filed April 26, 2016

    It ultimately held that "the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred because of construction defects" (id. at 109) and “the Act does not eliminate a property owner’s common law rights and remedies, otherwise recognized by law, where, as here, actual damage has occurred.”(/d. at 101.) Following the Liberty Mutual decision, in Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1411, the Second District Court of Appeal adopted the Liberty Mutual court’s holding with no meaningful or detailed analysis " This direct quote from the Liberty Mutual opinion plainly refutes Real Parties’ statement in their Opening Brief on the Merits, at pg. 22, that Liberty Mutual “paid to repair the home.” other than a cursory review of what wasalready stated in Liberty Mutual.

  6. McMILLIN ALBANY v. S.C.

    Real Parties in Interest, Carl Van Tassell and Sandra Van Tassell, Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

    Filed November 20, 2015

    Asto the first question, McMillin concedesthe existence of a conflict. It states that it “does not deny that as a result of the Fifth District’s . . . opinion ... there exists a conflict of case law with... Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove (2013) 219 Cal.App.4" 98... and Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4” 1411,” becausethe latter two cases both hold that “SB800 doesnot provide the exclusive remedy for residential construction defects, i.e., that common law caused ofaction are permitted.” (Answerat pp. 3-4.)