Bronson v. AmeriSpec Home Inspection Service

Filed 2/5/07  Bronson v. AmeriSpec Home Inspection Service CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John P. Farrell, Judge.  Reversed and remanded.

            Hackerbraly, Jeffrey A. Hacker and Lori K. Hollister, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

            Blatz, Pyfrom & Associates, Gregory C. Pyfrom, Anne Singer-Johnson and James Wright, for Defendants and Respondents.

_______________

            Sharon Bronson Duncan, her former husband Steve Duncan and their children[1] appeal from the judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of AmeriSpec Home Inspection Services, Cal-Pacific Home Inspection Services and Jeff Schrage (collectively AmeriSpec) in this negligence action.  Because triable issues of material fact exist as to whether AmeriSpec breached its statutory duty of care as a home inspector, we reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

            1.  The Home Purchase and Inspection of the Residence

            On September 25, 2001 Bronson Duncan entered an agreement to purchase a home on Michael Crest Drive in Canyon Country, where she planned to live with Duncan and their children.  Duncan represented her in the purchase as the buyer's agent.

            On October 3, 2001, during the escrow period, Duncan hired Schrage of AmeriSpec to conduct a general home inspection of the Michael Crest property for a total fee of $350.[2]  The written home inspection agreement, signed by Duncan, states at the top, â€