On July 12, a California appellate court upheld summary judgment for a subcontractor in a condo defect case. The court found that the condo association and general contractor failed to identify the subcontractor’s involvement in any of the alleged construction defects, which included decay, water intrusion, and mold growth. The condo association originally sued the company that owned the condo complex, and later added the general contractor to the suit. The general contractor filed a cross-complaint and joined several subcontractors into the action seeking indemnity. The court determined that the complaint did not specifically reference any misconduct on the part of the subcontractor, a drywall supplier and installer, therefore there was no obligation for the subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor. Indemnity is a duty to reimburse any loss, damage or liability incurred by another, and typically stems from a contractual relationship. In this situation, the indemnity clause in the contract between the subcontractor and general contractor provides that the subcontractor will indemnify the contractor against any claim of defect in the drywall or its installation. Because the complaint and cross-complaint failed to implicate the subcontractor, it had no duty to indemnify the contractor. This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.
Published by Brian L. Hill
As Director of Consulting Services for Xpera Group, Brian L. Hill connects clients to the diverse range of experts, technical specialists, tools and other resources that the firm has to offer in order to solve complex building performance issues. He is also the editor and publisher of AECforensics.com, which dissects the latest news and information impacting quality and risk management in the built environment. View all posts by Brian L. Hill