Newhall Land & Farming Co. v. McCarthy Construction

Good Law
106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 10·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 315·2001 D.A.R. 4117·2001 Daily Journal DAR 4117·88 Cal. App. 4th 769
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 27, 2001B136491California1,707 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nott, J.

The Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall) appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of McCarthy Construction (McCarthy). We affirm.

Contentions

Newhall contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because: (1) the complaint alleges defects which implicate the work of McCarthy; (2) McCarthy is not the homeowners association’s agent; and (3) because the homeowners association did not specifically allege that Newhall was liable for McCarthy’s work, Newhall can still seek indemnity from McCarthy.

Facts and Procedural Background

On May 21, 1998, Las Ventanas Homeowners Association (HOA) filed a complaint for damages against Newhall and its various divisions and partners for: (1) negligence; (2) strict liability; and (3) breach of express and implied warranties. HOA alleged that Newhall was negligent in constructing 142 condominium units in the City of Valencia (the condominium project). The complaint does not indicate when the condominium project was completed. Upon discovering the defects, HOA gave notice to Newhall of the defective conditions of the condominium project. While Newhall initially…

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.