Your point is well taken IF the issues are litigated. I suppose a Supreme
Court ruling will have a dramatic affect on the possibility of reaching
trial on issues stemming from fear of damage due to non-compliance which has
not failed or caused other damage.
Still, as of this moment, the majority of cases never reach a jury. The Bean
Counters would rather settle a case than litigate once the cost is compared.
However, few cases (as the one you mentioned) have the support of an
insurance company willing to go to trial to prove a case that establishes a
In my opinion, the cumulative cost of settlements could be offset by just
one case which, when settled, resolves the issues that are the bread and
butter of my legal firms.
Ambiguity in the code is the life's blood of legal firms who need any excuse
to tap into the pot of gold held by most professionals in the form of
Please keep us posted on the Court's decision.
From: GEOHAK(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:GEOHAK(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 7:49 AM
Christopher Wright wrote: "A suit for financial losses due to non
with the code may be maintained against the EOR."
Not necessarily. Economic loss in California cannot be claimed unless
they have caused damage to other property or personal injury.
This theory began with a case called "Seely"; a more recent case
1998) called Aas v Lyon held that a claim that "inadequate shear walls
built, by itself, does not support a right to a claim for damages, unless
this defect caused other property damage or personal injury." The same case
held that "stigma" damages cannot be maintained in Calif. ( ie a building is
known to be with some defect, as here, lack of adequate shear walls).
This was the holding by the Calif. Court of Appeal. The Cal Sup Court
expected to rule on this issue any time now. Will keep you posted.