ONLINE PRESS - New Ruling: Homeowners May Recover Damages from Emotional Distress

New Ruling: Homeowners with Construction Defects May Recover Damages from a Contractor for Emotional Distress

By Thomas E. Miller, Esq.
August/September 1998

Barry and Sandra Erlich hired John Menezes to serve as general contractor for the construction of their custom home in San Luis Obispo County. Seven months after construction was completed, they sued the contractor for serious construction defects and for emotional distress. They won and the contractor appealed.

In Erlich v. Menezes, 98 Daily journal D.A.R. 745, (January 23, 1998), the Appellate Court said that the verdict was correct. The contractor claimed the Erlich's shouldn't get money for emotional distress. The Court rejected the contractor's claim.

The Erlich's house was a disaster. Water leaked through the roof and windows, down walls and in between floors. The roof was collapsing. The sheer walls or load bearing walls were either incorrectly installed or absent altogether. The decks were about to collapse. The house was uninhabitable.

Both of the Erlichs got sick because of the house catastrophe. Mr. Erlich acquired a heart condition because of excessive stress attributed to the house problems. Both suffered emotional distress.

The Court said that in order to recover damage for emotional distress one has to show that the defendant has a duty to the plaintiff where the emotional condition of the plaintiff is an object. Here, the Erlichs and Mr. Menezes had a contractual relationship to build a house in exchange for money. The Court held that there is an "emotional" component to building a personal residence. Mr. Menezes' negligent construction of the house, resulting in an uninhabitable and unsafe house, breached

his duty to construct the house in a workmanlike manner. The Court held the Erlichs' emotional distress was proximately caused by Mr. Menezes shoddy work. Therefore, the Erlichs prevailed.

Arguably, this Court's reasoning could apply to an owner of a home or condominium, whether custom built or mass produced. It is not the first time the Court in California has grappled with this problem. The last time it did, it also favored the homeowner but that decision was never published and could not be used by plaintiffs to prove their case. We'll have to see if this decision stands the test of time.

[HOME PAGE] [WHAT'S NEW] [VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS] [FIRM PROFILE] [BIOGRAPHIES]
[CLIENT SERVICES] [CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS] [ONLINE PRESS] [LAW & LEGISLATION]
[CLAIM DEVELOPMENT] [UPCOMING EVENTS] [CONTACT US]