Beaumont Condominium Assoc. v. Brown, J.
2177 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 3, 2017Background
- Around New Year’s Day 2013 a post-tensioned cable lost tension and pulled out of a tenth-floor concrete slab at the Beaumont Condominiums, damaging the unit and common elements and compromising structural integrity.
- The condominium association (Beaumont Condominium Association) imposed a special assessment on unit owners for repairs and sued JMB, Carson Concrete, Pennoni, and others; one claim against JMB alleged breach of the implied warranty of habitability.
- JMB settled with the Association (JMB paid $103,001; Pennoni paid $36,599) but continued to pursue indemnification from Carson, asserting contractual indemnity and related claims.
- The trial court held the Association lacked a cause of action against JMB for breach of the implied warranty of habitability because only unit purchasers/owners may bring that claim, and thus JMB could not seek indemnification from Carson for that theory.
- The opinion here (concurring in part and dissenting in part) argues the PUCA vests associations with authority to manage common elements and to litigate on their behalf, so an association can bring an implied warranty claim for damage to common elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a condominium association has standing under PUCA to assert breach of implied warranty of habitability for damage to common elements | Association (and JMB on its behalf) argued PUCA authorizes associations to sue on matters affecting common elements, creating the requisite privity to assert implied warranty claims for common elements | Trial court/majority argued implied warranty of habitability is rooted in the contract of sale and belongs only to first purchasers/unit owners, not associations | Concurrence/dissent: association has such a right for common elements; the trial court/majority held it did not (concurrence disagrees with majority) |
| Whether JMB may seek indemnification from Carson for amounts JMB paid the Association for common-elements damage | JMB argued it retained indemnification rights because the Association properly could assert implied warranty claims against JMB for common-elements damage | Carson argued JMB had no right to indemnification because the Association lacked the underlying cause of action against JMB | Concurrence/dissent: JMB is entitled to seek indemnification for sums paid for common-elements damage; majority determined no indemnification because no underlying claim by Association |
Key Cases Cited
- Windham at Carmel Mountain Ranch Ass'n v. Superior Court, 109 Cal. App. 4th 1162 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (association statute provides standing to sue for implied warranty claims affecting common areas)
- Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc. v. Seawatch at Marathon Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 658 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1994) (statutory authority to litigate on behalf of unit owners permits associations to bring implied warranty claims for common elements)
- 1000 Grandview Avenue Ass'n v. Mt. Washington Assoc., 434 A.2d 796 (Pa. Super. 1981) (association standing to assert warranty claims under predecessor statute; PUCA not at issue in that case)