In Hicks v. Kaufman and Broad (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 908, homeowners brought a class action lawsuit against the developer who built and sold their homes, alleging that "the concrete slab foundations under their homes are 'inherently defective' because Kaufman constructed them using Fibermesh, a polypropylene product, instead of welded wire mesh." (Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp., supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 912.) Plaintiffs' complaint alleged causes of action for strict liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The class was defined as "All persons or entities who own one or more homes in specified Kaufman developments which were constructed and marketed by Kaufman in which 'Fibermesh,' a polypropylene product, was utilized in the concrete foundation slabs as a substitute for 6x6, 10x10 welded wire mesh with manifested damage or defect due to the Fibermesh substitution." (Ibid.) The complaint sought "compensatory damages associated with the repair and/or replacement of the concrete foundations" of the subject homes. (Ibid.) The trial court denied class certification and dismissed all class allegations, because the class was not reasonably ascertainable, and the causes of action lacked common issues of fact. The Court of Appeal concurred with the trial courts ruling that the tort causes of action could not be certified as a class action, "because the elements of liability and causation cannot be established without individualized proof as to each of the purported 10,000 class members." (Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp., supra, 89 Cal.App.4th 913.) However, the appellate court found that the causes of action for breach of express and implied warranties were appropriate for class certification, explaining that "the existence of a common inherent defect was a question of fact common to the class which, if established, would support recovery on a breach of warranty theory." (Id. at p. 918.) The common inherent defect in Hicks was the defendant's use of Fibermesh in the construction of the concrete slab foundations of the plaintiffs' homes. The plaintiffs' contention in Hicks was that "to prove breach of express and implied home warranties they only need to prove Fibermesh is an inherently defective product the use of which is substantially certain to lead to foundation failure." (Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp., supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 917.) The plaintiffs offered the declaration of an expert who opined: "Fibermesh allows the cracks to separate, causing a loss of the interlock of the aggregate . . . slab. . . . Slab replacement is necessary to correct the problem, regardless of the condition of the slab at the present time. Whether any particular slab has actually yet cracked, and or the width of any particular crack at the present time, are not material factors. . . ." (Ibid.) The defendants in Hicks maintained that, in order to establish a breach of warranty, "each class member would have to produce evidence his or her Fibermesh foundation has cracked or split in a way which would not have occurred if the foundation had been constructed using welded wire mesh. Producing this proof would require taking and analyzing core samples from the foundations of all class members' homes, which plaintiffs themselves allege number in the thousands." (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal in Hicks concluded that "proof of breach of warranty does not require proof the product has malfunctioned but only that it contains an inherent defect which is substantially certain to result in malfunction during the useful life of the product." (Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp., supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 918.) For that reason, liability was premised on the fact that an inherently defective product was used, and not on the particular condition of each individual home.