Lantzy v. Centex Homes

In Lantzy v. Centex Homes (2003) 31 Cal.4th 363, the California Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that equitable tolling could extend the limitations period for suits based on latent construction defects under Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15, subdivision (a), which provides, "No action may be brought ... more than 10 years after the substantial completion of the development or improvement . ..." The court concluded that this "stentorian" language, combined with the statute's inclusion of several express exemptions to the limitations period and its stated purpose of protecting contractors from perpetual exposure to lawsuits, demonstrated that equitable tolling would not extend the limitations period for reasons not stated in the statute itself. (Lantzy, supra, at pp. 373-374.) The court held that a defendant may be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as defense to an action concerning latent construction defects in improvement to real property under the following conditions: (1) if one potentially liable for a construction defect represents, while the limitations period is still running, that all actionable damage has been or will be repaired, thus making it unnecessary to sue; (2) the plaintiff reasonably relies on this representation to refrain from bringing a timely action; (3) the representation proves false after the limitations period has expired; (4) the plaintiff proceeds diligently once the truth is discovered . . . .