Construction material manufacturer to provide equitable indemnity for defects under state Right to Repair Act

A defendant sued for construction defects under the state's Right to Repair Act can bring a cross claim under equitable indemnity against the manufacturer of defective materials used. That's the ruling December 9 by the state Fourth District Court of Appeal in the case of Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc.,(Cal.App. 4 Dist.)

A home builder was able to pursue an action against a manufacturer of plumbing fittings under the Right to Repair Act, to recover the cost of replacing allegedly faulty fittings that had not yet failed. The action was one for equitable indemnity, based on the builder's obligation to homeowners under the Right to Repair Act to the extent that any flaw in the fittings caused the homes to fall below the standards of the Act. The builder's total cost to replace all of the fittings was approximately $1,494,904, but the Court of Appeal did not resolve the issue of the manufacturer's actual liability to indemnify the builder.

New jurisdictional trap: subdivision act litigation service of process applies to CEQA litigation

It's been called a trap for the unwary. Now the trap is even bigger... In Friends of Riverside's Hills v. City of Riverside ,(Cal.App. 4 Dist.) , a case of first impression, an objector's petition for a writ of mandate challenging a city's approval of subdivision tract maps under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was properly dismissed for noncompliance with the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) requirement of service of the summons within 90 days, even though the objector had met CEQA's requirements by providing notice of its intent to sue, and personally serving the city with a copy of its petition and a request to prepare the administrative record. Because the CEQA cause of action was a challenge to a decision concerning a subdivision, it was subject to the SMA service scheme as well as to CEQA.