Anderson v. Brouwer

Citations: 99 Cal. App. 3d 176; 160 Cal. Rptr. 65; 1979 Cal. App. LEXIS 2495Docket: Civ. 3982

Court: California Court of Appeal; November 29, 1979; California; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Rex Anderson appeals a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of demurrers to his amended complaint, which was dismissed without leave to amend based on the statute of limitations. Anderson had contracts with architect James Shade and contractor Brouwer Brothers for construction work on a dental office, completed in February 1970. The original complaint was filed in September 1977, over seven years post-completion, alleging damages for breach of contract, negligent performance, and breach of warranty due to latent construction defects, specifically ruts in the second story floor.

The amended complaint states that Anderson discovered these defects within four months of completion, with further deterioration occurring over the years. The defects impaired the use of the premises and posed safety risks. Defendants failed to meet contractual obligations, contributing to the defects through negligent design and construction.

The court referenced the statutory framework governing the case: under Code of Civil Procedure section 337, a four-year statute of limitations applies to written contracts, and a cause of action accrues upon discovery of defects. However, section 337.15, effective March 4, 1972, established a 10-year statute of limitations specifically for damages related to property improvements, which further impacts the timeliness of Anderson's claims.

Latent deficiencies in construction or surveying of real property include issues not evident through reasonable inspection, which can lead to property damage. The statutory framework specifies that claims related to such deficiencies must be filed within specific timeframes: either within four years after discovery of the defect or within ten years after substantial completion of the improvement. The California Supreme Court's ruling in Regents of University of California v. Hartford Acc. Indem. Co. established that sections 337 and 337.15 are mutually exclusive, with the shorter limitation period applying.

In this case, the appellant discovered defects in June 1970 and April 1971. The four-year limitation from the discovery of the initial defect expired before the appellant's complaint was filed in September 1977. The resolution of whether the statute of limitations applies to later defects depends on whether a reasonable inspection would have revealed them. If a reasonable person would have been prompted to investigate upon discovering the initial defects, the appellant was obligated to do so. However, whether further inquiry would have uncovered subsequent deficiencies typically presents a factual question. Additionally, there exists a judicially recognized exception that may delay the statute of limitations in cases of progressively developing wrongs, extending the time until discovery or opportunity for discovery occurs.

At the pleading stage, plaintiffs must explicitly demonstrate a valid excuse for late filing within their complaint, detailing both the time and manner of discovery and the circumstances justifying the delay. General assertions about late discovery are inadequate. In the current case, the amended complaint failed to meet these requirements, rendering it invalid. Additionally, the court considered whether it abused its discretion by not allowing the appellant to amend the complaint further. The original demurrers were based on the lack of specificity regarding the discovery date, essential for determining the statute of limitations. Although the amended complaint included a discovery date, the central issue remained unaddressed: the failure to detail how and when defects were discovered after April 1971, and why earlier discovery was not feasible. Consequently, the court determined that the appellant should be permitted to amend the complaint, leading to a reversal of the judgment, with each party responsible for their own appeal costs. The excerpt also notes the enactment of Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1 in 1967, establishing a four-year limitation for patent defects, defined as those apparent through reasonable inspection.