This important case before the California Supreme Court will decide whether to allow plaintiffs in construction defect have their choice of SB 800 or filing a strict liability lawsuit. Strict liability lawsuits give very few defenses to the defendants, and are very expensive to resolve. it's important to note that the CALPASC brief was the only one that gave the subcontractor perspective on SB 800!
Previously, Division Three of the Fourth Appellate District decided in Liberty Mutual v. Brookfield that plaintiffs had their choice of filing SB 800 or strict liability. A subsequent decision by Fifth Appellate District court issued a very different ruling in McMillin Albany v. Superior Court. That particular ruling reviewed the Liberty Mutual decision and clearly showed how it came to the wrong conclusion. The McMillin court clearly decided that SB 800 is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims in new for sale residential construction. The result now is two conflicting appellate rulings on SB 800 and strict liability.
McMillin Albany was appealed to the state Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. Briefs must be filed by mid-August, 2016, after which the court will set for oral argument. Following that, the court will rule, but likely not until mid to late 2017.
You can see a copy of the CALPASC Amicus filed by attorney Bob Closson by CLICKING HERE.