## Facts

- Centex Homes developed and built single-family homes in the Eagles Ridge project.
- Homeowners later discovered latent construction defects involving window leaks that caused water intrusion and damage.
- The homeowners sued Centex on construction-defect theories including negligence and breach of warranty.
- The action was filed within three years of discovery (or reasonable discovery) of the defects but more than 10 years after the project’s completion as shown by recorded notices of completion (about 10 years and 9 months).
- The homeowners alleged Centex attempted repairs and reassured them the windows were not defective and litigation was unnecessary.
- Centex demurred, asserting the 10-year outer limit in California Code of Civil Procedure § 337.15 barred the suit.

## Issues

1. Whether the 10-year period in Code of Civil Procedure § 337.15 for latent construction-defect actions is subject to equitable tolling during a period of promised or attempted repairs.
2. Whether a defendant may be equitably estopped from asserting § 337.15 when the defendant’s statements or conduct allegedly induced the plaintiff to delay filing suit.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held § 337.15 is a statute of repose establishing an absolute 10-year outside limit not subject to equitable tolling for repair efforts or promises to repair.
- The Court held equitable estoppel can, in proper circumstances, bar a defendant from asserting § 337.15 when the defendant’s conduct actually and reasonably induced delayed filing.
- The Court concluded the homeowners did not plead facts sufficient to establish equitable estoppel.
- The Court reversed the Court of Appeal and directed reinstatement of the trial court’s dismissal after the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend.

## Legal Principles

- Code of Civil Procedure § 337.15 imposes a fixed 10-year statute of repose for latent construction-defect actions, running from substantial completion, regardless of when the defect is discovered.
- Courts may not apply equitable tolling to extend § 337.15 based on repair attempts or negotiations; doing so would defeat the statute’s function of providing final repose.
- Where a statute provides specific exceptions, additional equitable exceptions are not inferred absent legislative indication.
- Equitable estoppel is distinct from tolling and may apply even to a statute of repose if the defendant’s misrepresentation or conduct actually and reasonably induced the plaintiff to forbear suit until after the period expired.
- To invoke estoppel, a plaintiff must plead and prove specific facts showing inducement and reasonable reliance; general allegations of repairs or reassurances are insufficient.

## Conclusion

Section 337.15 sets an unextended 10-year outer limit for latent construction-defect suits that cannot be tolled by repair efforts, but a defendant may still lose the limitations defense if the plaintiff specifically pleads and proves equitable estoppel based on conduct that caused late filing.


Lantzy v. Centex Homes, 31 Cal. 4th 363 (Cal. 2003)