Scott

Introduction and Facts

In Carty v. American States Ins. Co. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 399, 402-403 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 ], this court rejected the idea that the words “latent defect,” as used in a homeowners insurance policy, only applied to some undetected defect in construction materials, and did not apply to faulty design or shoddy workmanship. In Carty we also held that because certain defects in the construction of the foundation of a home were “neither readily observable nor apparent on reasonable inspection,” those defects were latent, and therefore the loss they caused was not covered under an insurance policy which specifically excluded loss due to latent defect. (Id. at p. 404.) In the process, we specifically declined to follow an Illinois appellate court opinion, Mattis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (1983) 118 Ill.App.3d 612 [ 73 Ill.Dec. 907 , 454 N.E.2d 1156 , 41 A.L.R.4th 1082 ], which involved the defective design or construction of a basement retaining wall. Mattis observed that “the great majority of the cases” limited the meaning of “latent defect” to inherent defects in just the construction materials, and only then when the defect “could not be discovered by…