Filed 1/12/07 Poizner v. Golden Eagle Ins. Co. CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STEVE POIZNER, as Insurance Commissioner, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant and Respondent;
CAJONVALLEYUNIONSCHOOL DISTRICT,
Claimant and Appellant.
A114081
(San FranciscoCounty
Super. Ct. No. 984502, OSC No. 786)
ClaimantCajonValleyUnionSchool District (district) learned that the framing in one of its schools had been improperly constructed when a fire revealed the beams, previously hidden by the ceiling and roof. During construction of the school buildings, the general contractor responsible for the framing had been terminated by the district after the framing was installed but before work on the buildings was finished. The fire occurred nine years after the buildings were finished, near the outer limit of the 10-year statute of repose applicable to latent construction defects under Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15. The district eventually filed a lawsuit against defendant Golden Eagle Insurance Company (Golden Eagle), which had bonded the work of the terminated contractor. The suit was filed more than 10 years after the framing had been completed and the contractor had been terminated, but less than 10 years after the replacement contractor completed the school buildings.
The district's lawsuit was treated as a claim by the Insurance Commissioner (commissioner), who had become the conservator for Golden Eagle's business. The commissioner rejected the claim as untimely, concluding that the 10-year statute of limitations for latent defects began to run no later than the date on which the original contractor was terminated. As an alternate ground for rejecting the claim, the commissioner also concluded that the deficiencies in the framing constituted a patent defect, and therefore were subject to a four-year statute of limitations, because they should have been obvious to the district's building inspector during the construction process. Finding both conclusions to constitute an abuse of the commissioner's discretion, we reverse.
I. BACKGROUND
In 1993, the district accepted bids on construction of BlossomValleyElementary School (school) in El Cajon. The project was divided into two bid packages, Base Bid B, which covered â€
Description
Claimant Cajon Valley Union School District (district) learned that the framing in one of its schools had been improperly constructed when a fire revealed the beams, previously hidden by the ceiling and roof. During construction of the school buildings, the general contractor responsible for the framing had been terminated by the district after the framing was installed but before work on the buildings was finished. The fire occurred nine years after the buildings were finished, near the outer limit of the 10 year statute of repose applicable to latent construction defects under Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15. The district eventually filed a lawsuit against defendant (Golden Eagle), which had bonded the work of the terminated contractor. The suit was filed more than 10 years after the framing had been completed and the contractor had been terminated, but less than 10 years after the replacement contractor completed the school buildings. The district's lawsuit was treated as a claim by the Insurance Commissioner (commissioner), who had become the conservator for Golden Eagle's business. The commissioner rejected the claim as untimely, concluding that the 10 year statute of limitations for latent defects began to run no later than the date on which the original contractor was terminated. As an alternate ground for rejecting the claim, the commissioner also concluded that the deficiencies in the framing constituted a patent defect, and therefore were subject to a four year statute of limitations, because they should have been obvious to the district's building inspector during the construction process. Finding both conclusions to constitute an abuse of the commissioner's discretion, court reverse.
