Thieriot

Thieriot v. Lusardi Construction CA1/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 5, 2023A164165California4,391 words

Opinion

Opinion

Banke, J.

discussion of the issues on appeal.

2 needs [a] permanent solution.” She further asserted that to correct the problems, the windows and doors needed to be “recut . . . to fit the frames so then there will be a fit between them. The idea of filling the space with rubbers and other strips does not work.” The following year, in 2013, Thieriot retained an attorney. She also retained an expert who provided a report in mid-July addressing the problems Thieriot had identified. The expert did not identify any problem of which Thieriot was not already aware, nor did he pinpoint a specific cause of the problems. In mid-December 2016—more than six and a half years after the spring of 2010, by which time Thieriot had become aware of problems with the windows and doors, and four and a half years after her July 2012 e-mail to Lusardi and the manufacturer recapping the problems, complaining about the failed repair efforts, and asserting the windows and doors need to be recut—Thieriot filed the instant lawsuit against Lusardi and three other contractors. Thieriot alleged Lusardi had not used reasonable care in installing the windows and doors, had actively concealed defects, and had overstated…

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.