Lazarus
PHILADELPHIA - "Merciless litigation" from homeowners who sued their builder should now be put to bed, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has said in long-running cases over the use of stucco.
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas judge Anne Marie Coyle had written the seven years of litigation against Toll Brothers produced little more than "wasted resources," and it was sent to arbitration rather than trial.
Homeowners complained they didn't get a fair shake in the arbitration proceedings but were denied by the Superior Court in a July 16 opinion written by Judge Anne Lazarus.
"Appellants can point to no material evidence that they were prevented from presenting to the arbitrator which would have had an effect on the outcome of the arbitrator's decision," Lazarus wrote.
Thirty-eight plaintiffs owning about 20 homes sued Toll Brothers in Bucks County in 2017-18, more than a decade after their homes were built. Chief among the issues in the case is the state's statute of repose, which prohibits construction claims more than 12 years after construction work but adds two more years if the damage occurs in years 10-12.
Judge Coyle wrote during their time in Bucks County the cases involved "merciless litigation, considerable expense, wasted resources and incessant motions and appeals." They were transferred to Philadelphia, consolidated and sent to that court's arbitration program.
The initial arbitrator was eventually removed for "partiality or lack of independence, inability, or refusal to perform his/her duties with diligence and good faith, or any grounds for disqualification provided by applicable laws," Lazarus wrote.
Kevin Slakas took over as new arbitrator as the Superior Court decided another case against Toll Brothers involving the statute of repose. He asked the parties for briefs on how that case applied to this one.
He ruled for Toll Brothers without holding oral arguments. The homeowners say they were denied due process because they weren't allowed to provide witness testimony or cross-examine Toll Brothers' witnesses at an evidentiary hearing.
They said a hearing would have given them a chance to distinguish the facts of their case from the one at issue in the Superior Court's repose ruling, but the Superior Court found they had that chance when filing the briefs Slakas ordered.
