Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 621·46 Cal. App. 4th 1326·54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 300·96 Daily Journal DAR 8038·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4865
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 27, 1996B097730California4,157 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kitching, J.

Introduction

Plaintiff sustained injuries more than five years after substantial completion of a real property improvement on which petitioner performed work. Relying on the four-year limitations period in Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1 , petitioner seeks a writ of mandate directing the Los Angeles County Superior Court to vacate its ruling denying petitioner’s summary judgment motion and enter an order granting the motion.

We conclude that it is not plaintiff’s injury resulting from a patent deficiency, but substantial completion of construction of a real property improvement, that triggers the limitation period of section 337.1. We further hold that section 337.1 applies to actions involving a patent deficiency, whether that patent deficiency exists at the time of, or after, substantial completion of construction. We also hold that under the circumstances of this case, the deficiency causing plaintiff’s injury was “patent” as a matter of law. We therefore grant the petition and issue a writ of mandate ordering the trial court to set aside its denial of petitioner’s summary judgment motion and to enter an order granting summary judgment in favor of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.