Moreno

Moreno v. Sanchez

Good Law
106 Cal. App. 4th 1415·131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 684·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 407·2003 Daily Journal DAR 2997·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2392
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 17, 2003B145698California22,497 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Johnson, J.

Buyers brought suit against a home inspector for failing to discover and report certain defects in the house they ultimately purchased. The trial court sustained without leave to amend the inspector’s demurrer to *1419 the buyers’ second amended complaint. The court found the one-year statute of limitations specified in the home inspection contract barred all causes of action whether sounding in tort or contract.

We conclude one year from the date of the inspection can be an unreasonably short period of time to discover a home inspector’s breach. Accordingly, we hold a cause of action against a home inspector accrues when the buyer discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the breach. We also conclude a home inspector is not immune from tort liability. We thus remand to the trial court with directions to vacate the dismissal and to overrule the demurrer.

Facts and Proceedings Below

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the buyers’ complaint following the sustaining of the home inspector’s demurrer without leave to amend. For purposes of appeal, we thus accept as true the properly pleaded factual allegations of the…

Dissenting Opinion

Perluss, J.

Two home buyers filed a lawsuit for negligence and breach of contract against a home inspector 14 months after the inspector allegedly failed to competently inspect the house they had *1438 agreed to purchase. The contract signed by the home buyers required any legal action against the home inspector, “including those sounding in tort or contract,” to be initiated within one year from the date of the inspection. I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that this express, written agreement to shorten the limitations periods otherwise applicable to the home buyers’ causes of action to one year from the date of inspection is unreasonable as a matter of law.

1. The Parties ’ Agreement to Shorten the Limitations Period

Under the terms of their agreement to purchase a 49-year-old house in Whittier, appellants Armando V. Moreno and Gloria Contreras had the right to have the property inspected and to approve the inspection results as a condition to the close of escrow. They hired respondent Deric Sanchez to conduct the inspection and agreed to pay him a $250 inspection fee.

On the date of the inspection, Sanchez gave Moreno a preprinted home inspection contract to sign.…

Opinion

Buyers brought suit against a home inspector for failing to discover and report certain defects in the house they ultimately purchased. The trial court sustained without leave to amend the inspector's demurrer to the buyers' second amended complaint. The court found the one-year statute of limitations specified in the home inspection contract barred all causes of action whether sounding in tort or contract.

We conclude one year from the date of the inspection can be an unreasonably short period of time to discover a home inspector's breach. Accordingly, we hold a cause of action against a home inspector accrues when the buyer discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the breach. We also conclude a home inspector is not immune from tort liability. We thus remand to the trial court with directions to vacate the dismissal and to overrule the demurrer.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the buyers' complaint following the sustaining of the home inspector's demurrer without leave to amend. For purposes of appeal, we thus accept as true the properly pleaded factual allegations of the complaint. [1]

In 1998, appellants…

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.