Homebuilder dodges $3M defective construction claim

Homebuilder dodges $3M defective construction claim (access required)

A defective construction claim against a homebuilder failed after a federal judge found that the plaintiffs failed to state in their contract that the builder was responsible for soil tests. U.S. District Court Judge Martin Reidinger last month entered summary judgment in favor of defendant Robbinsville Custom Molding, a general contractor facing claims of breach of contract, unfair and deceptive trade practices and fraud. The defendant’s attorney, Ervin L. Ball, said the plaintiffs sought an award of about $3 million.

Login required


You have clicked on a link to information that is exclusive to NC Lawyers Weekly subscribers.

	Email Address: Password:	Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here. Forgot Password?

Interested in Subscribing?

Start by choosing how you'd like your news delivered.

- Print and Digital -

- Digital Only -

By Amber Nimocks
Published: February 15, 2013
Time posted: 4:30 pm
Tags: homebuilder

POST A COMMENT

Comments are closed.

Most Important Opinions

Environmental – Sedimentation Pollution Control Act – Private Action – Violation Required – Civil Practice – Standing – Administrative (access required)

Applewood Properties, LLC v. New South Properties, LLC Because the county Natural Resources Department never found the defendant-contractor to be in violation of any law, rule, order or erosion and sedimentation and control plan, plaintiff did not have standing to bring a civil action under the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act to seek redress for its injuries.

Tort/Negligence – Malicious Prosecution – Initiation – Restatement Standard — Giving Information to Police (access required)

North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cully’s Motorcross Park, Inc. Even though defendant Volpe would probably never have been charged with obtaining property by false pretenses if the plaintiff-insurance company’s investigator had not told a police sergeant the results of his investigation, we reject this “but for” standard as the method for proving the initiation element of malicious prosecution.

Tort/Negligence – Personal Injury – Shooting – 52-Year-Old Shooter – Parents’ Gun (access required)

Bridges v. Parrish We reject plaintiff’s claim that defendants are liable for failing to secure their gun, thereby allowing their 52-year-old son to gain access to the gun and shoot plaintiff with it.