Centex Homes v. Superior Court

Good Law
154 Cal. Rptr. 3d 737·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 227·214 Cal. App. 4th 1090·2013 WL 1218242
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 25, 2013No. D062995California6,798 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Aaron, J.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Government Code section 901 1 provides in relevant part, “[T]he date upon which a cause of action for equitable indemnity or partial equitable indemnity accrues shall be the date upon which a defendant is served with the complaint giving rise to the defendant’s claim for equitable indemnity or partial equitable indemnity against the public entity.” (Italics added.)

In this case, we must determine whether the trial court properly concluded that a homeowners association’s original complaint against Centex Homes (Centex) 2 alleging violations of various statutory building standards (Civ. Code, § 896) related to Centex’s construction of a multistory residential building, gave rise to Centex’s claim for equitable indemnity against the City of San Diego (City). We conclude that because the original complaint did not encompass the claim for which Centex seeks indemnity from the City, Centex’s claim for equitable indemnity did not accrue with the filing of the original complaint. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The underlying lawsuit against Centex

On April 20, 2009, the Element Owners Association…

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.