Leaking Home Buyers: Builder Fell Short of Basic Codes
In April 2007, plaintiffs Kevin and Kathleen Johnson purchased a new single-family home built by Cutler Group Inc., in North Wales, for $646,500.
January 22, 2018 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
Leaking Home Buyers: Builder Fell Short of Basic Codes
Johnson v. Cutler Group
$161,700 Verdict
Date of Verdict:
Oct. 13.
Court and Case No.:
C.P. Montgomery County, No. 2013-15971.
Judge:
Thomas P. Rogers.
Type of Action:
Breach of warranty.
Injuries:
Damage to home.
Plaintiffs Counsel:
Steven H. Lupin and James S. Lee, Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin, Maxwell & Lupin, Lansdale.
Defense Counsel:
Bruce S. Pancio, Pancio Law Group, Lansdale.
Plaintiffs Expert:
Kevin Thompson, building codes, Unionville.
Defense Expert:Timothy Ronan, engineering, Mount Laurel, New Jersey.
Comment:
In April 2007, plaintiffs Kevin and Kathleen Johnson purchased a new single-family home built by Cutler Group Inc., in North Wales, for $646,500.
The home had a brick exterior in the front and stucco around the three remaining sides. When the Johnsons purchased their home, Cutler promised it was “built by skilled tradesmen using modern techniques, and in accordance with industry accepted industry practices of this area.”
One month after moving into the home, the Johnsons began experiencing leaks and complained to Cutler.
According to the Johnsons, while Cutler initially responded to the complaints and repaired the leaks, Cutler stopped responding when the leaks continued. The Johnsons eventually hired a building inspector, who performed a moisture inspection and found significantly elevated moisture levels throughout their home. The building inspector recommended that the stucco exterior be replaced to prevent leaks.
The Johnsons sued the Cutler Group, alleging breach of expressed warranty, breach of implied warranty of habitability, breach of warranty of workmanship, and violations under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The claims were bifurcated for the purposes of trial; the warranty claims proceeded to a jury trial, while the Johnsons' unfair trade practices claim was to be determined at a bench trial, scheduled for a later date.
During discovery, the Johnsons' expert completed a second inspection of the home, known as destructive testing. The expert selected various areas around the home and essentially peeled back the stucco exterior in order to determine the nature and severity of the problem. The second inspection revealed that Cutler failed to follow basic township building code requirements, which was compounded by a failure to use modern techniques, let alone accepted industry practices of the times, according to the expert.
The township building code required the stucco to be seven-eighths of one inch thick, but the inspection revealed that the stucco was only one-half inch to five-eighths of an inch thick. This second inspection also revealed deficiencies and defects with the brick exterior.
Johnsons' expert testified that Cutler failed to meet 16 out of 17 building-code requirements in constructing the home's exterior.
The expert recommended that all four exterior walls be removed and replaced. The total cost to remove and replace the exterior walls was estimated to be $161,700.
Cutler's expert in engineering testified that Cutler's failures were acceptable deviations, because such deviations occur all the time in the housing industry.
The expert acknowledged that there were defects in the home but said that only spot repairs, as opposed to an entire house remediation, were required under the circumstances. The expert further disputed the findings of the Johnsons' expert, since the alleged cause of the leak was not discovered during the inspections.
The Johnsons sought to recover $161,700 to remediate the home's exterior, including ripping out and replacing the walls and repairing damaged insulation, doors, and windows.
The jury found against Cutler and in favor of Johnsons' claims of breach of expressed warranty, breach of implied warranty of habitability, and breach of warranty of workmanship. The Johnsons were determined to receive $161,700.
This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiffs' counsel. Defense counsel did not respond to calls for comment.
—This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication. •
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMatt's Corner: RPC 8.4(d)—Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice
2 minute readWhile Data Breaches May Lead to Years of Legal Battles, Cyberattacks Can Be Prevented
4 minute readThe Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1From 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Rollercoaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
- 2Critical Mass With Law.com’s Amanda Bronstad: Why Jurors in California Failed to Reach Verdict Over Zantac, Bankruptcy Judge Tables Sanctions Against Beasley Allen Attorney
- 3Jones Day Client Seeks Indemnification for $7.2M Privacy Settlement, Plus Defense Costs
- 4Elections Have Consequences: Some Thoughts on Labor and Employment Law Topics in 2025 and Beyond
- 5Law Firm Associates, Staffers Continue to Put a Premium On Workplace Flexibility, Study Finds
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250