N34499) alleged their units "have been damaged to the extent that they are rendered valueless." In the third complaint (case No. N26398) alleged their condominium was "suffering from severe cracks in the walls and settling of the slab." The plaintiffs in the second complaint (case No. The plaintiffs in the first complaint (case No. The complaints alleged the plaintiffs' condominium units had been damaged by soil subsidence. Between 19 separate purchasers of the condominiums and the homeowners association filed three complaints against Pearlman, Roundtree, Ltd., Roundtree Condominiums, Twelve Trees and DMF. Significantly some of the policies included a broad form property damage endorsement.Īfter the condominiums were completed, they were conveyed to various individuals.
Robert reeder maryland series#
At various stages between 19, Pearlman, Roundtree, Ltd., Twelve Trees, Roundtree Condominiums and DMF were each named insureds on a series of comprehensive general liability policies issued by plaintiff Maryland Casualty Company (Maryland). (DMF), was retained as a general contractor to construct condominiums on the three parcels. The joint venture was named Roundtree Condominiums, also a defendant. The partnership in turn formed a joint venture with defendant Twelve Trees Corporation (Twelve Trees). Thereafter Pearlman formed defendant Roundtree, Ltd., a partnership. At the time Pearlman bought the parcels they had been graded.
Generally the parties agree defendant Samuel Pearlman purchased three adjoining parcels of vacant land in Carlsbad in 1972. We reverse because we find the exclusions the insurance company relies upon do not apply as a matter of law to the claims made against the insureds.Īlthough the record in this case is voluminous, it does not definitively describe the relationship between the various entities who developed the condominium project.
The purchasers of condominium units, their homeowners association, an individual developer and the entities which participated in the construction and sale of the condominium project appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of a liability insurer. Goldbeck as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent. Kidd and Ault, Deuprey, Jones, Danielsen & Gorman for Plaintiff and Respondent. McKenzie and Aguirre & Eckmann as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants. Meredith, Farella, Braun & Martel, James K. McMenomy and Duke, Gerstel, Shearer & Bregante for Defendants and Appellants. Ballo, Kimberly Lewis, Kolodny & Pressman, Neil, Dymott, Perkins, Brown & Frank, James A. J., with Huffman and Froehlich, JJ., concurring.) (Superior Court of San Diego County, Nos.
GEORGE WAYNE REEDER et al., Defendants and Appellants. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
0 kommentar(er)
