Overview

Archer Norris attorneys have defended well over one hundred errors and omissions cases within the last ten years. In addition to defending healthcare professionals and design professionals, we represent accountants and IRS enrolled agents, real estate brokers, agents, and appraisers, and insurance agents and brokers. Professional Specialties Units of major insurance companies assign the bulk of these cases, but there are also many instances where we have been hired directly by the client.

Representative Matters

Noteworthy Cases:

• In Cezar v. Atwood, a buyer contended that the dual agency broker and sellers had intentionally failed to disclose a large crack in a slab foundation. Buyer alleged that the crack caused the rental property to be unrentable and was expensive to repair. Sellers enforced the contractual arbitration provision against buyer. The broker and agents we represented only agreed to binding arbitration when partner Jon Tonsing persuaded buyer to cap her damages. A binding arbitration occurred, and our broker, its agents, and sellers defensed the case, with buyer having to pay our clients' costs and the costs and attorney fees of sellers.
• In Diaz & Ponce v. Security Pacific Real Estate, a real estate agent allegedly failed to adequately advise the seller regarding the duty to disclose known defects. Strong evidence of adequate disclosure allowed us to negotiate a relatively nominal settlement on behalf of the real estate agent although the seller remains party to the litigation.
• In Smith v. Security Pacific Real Estate, a real estate agent allegedly failed to fully explain to the buyer the contingent nature of her purchase offer. The contingencies were not satisfied and, in a very rapidly rising real estate market, the sale fell through. The buyer sued the agent for well in excess of a hundred thousand dollars in damages but ultimately settled for a modest fraction of that amount after discovery revealed the damage claims were vastly inflated.
• In Hoffmeister v. Wallace Termite, we persuaded the court to grant our motion for summary judgment, cutting our clients loose from the case. The buyers had sued their termite company, alleging that the inspection was insufficient and defective. The termite company cross-complained against our clients, the agent and broker for the buyers, alleging that our clients should have pointed out the deficiencies with the property or with the termite company's inspection of the property. The judge agreed with our position that the real estate broker and agent were not, in his words, "the watchdog" over the termite company's inspection, and granted summary judgment.
• In Vafa v. Lorenzetti, our client represented a purchaser of some valuable vacant land. Seller and the listing broker mistakenly thought that sale had fallen through, and entered into a contract to sell the land to a second buyer. The first buyer sued seller for specific performance and all of the agents and brokers. The second buyer also threatened a suit for specific performance. The case settled after three mediations with our client making a comparatively modest monetary contribution, buyer #1 receiving the property, and buyer #2 receiving a large amount of money from seller and the listing broker.
• In Harbut v. Ecoff, plaintiff buyers contended that there were hidden mold conditions and other undisclosed defects. Plaintiffs put considerable energy into the case, taking about one week's worth of depositions and spending almost a full day in mediation. Plaintiff's lowest demand was for $300,000. However, after enduring two days of depositions, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their action in exchange for a waiver of costs.
• In Viola v. Viola, plaintiff claimed that our client, the listing broker, had sold her grandfather's home even though plaintiff should have signed the sales documents as trustee of his living trust. We filed a motion for summary judgment based on various arguments about the law of trusts and the Probate Code. We accepted plaintiff's offer-made days before the motion was to be heard-to dismiss the action as to our client in exchange for a waiver of costs.
• In Goodrich & Pennington v. Weidenbach, plaintiff hard money lender alleged that our appraiser client’s valuation was below the standard of care, leaving plaintiff with valueless security after a foreclosure.  Our demurrer on statute of limitations grounds was sustained without leave to amend, and judgment was entered in our client’s favor.