Between 2005 and 2008, Vintage Homes constructed a number of homes in the Ross Bridge development. Certain homeowners, including the Fandettis, Purters, and Veals, claimed that Vintage had failed to construct their homes in a workmanlike manner, resulting in various defects that had caused damage to, or otherwise impaired their ability to enjoy, their homes. After Chinese Drywall was discovered in the homes and remediation was performed, litigation on the alleged construction defects moved forward. Each of the homeowners had entered into a Limited Warranty Agreement with Vintage, which limited Vintage’s obligations and required that it repair, replace, or pay the reasonable cost of repairing or replacing certain latent defects in the home for which it received notice within a one-year period after the homeowners’ took possession. The Fandettis claimed that they had given notice to Vintage of issues with their windows, including wood rot and deterioration of window components and brick binding. They further claimed that Vintage was obligated to pay the reasonable cost of replacing all of the windows on their home. The Purters claimed that they had given notice to Vintage of wood framing installed at or below grade. They claimed that Vintage was obligated to pay the reasonable cost of replacing that framing, as well as other components of the home that would need to be replaced in order to complete the framing repair. The Veals claimed that they had given notice to Vintage of issues with their windows and doors, including improper sealant around the perimeters and brick binding. They further claimed that Vintage was obligated to pay the reasonable cost of replacing all of the windows on their home.

Prior to trial, Vintage Homes engaged in global settlement negotiations with the homeowners. The Fandettis’ last settlement demand was understood to be $50,000.00; the Purters’ last demand was understood to be $78,000.00; and the Veals’ last demand was understood to be $50,000.00.  At trial, Vintage denied that the homeowners had given proper notice of these claimed defects under their Limited Warranty Agreements. Vintage further denied that the issues claimed by the homeowners, with the exception of the Purters’ framing, were the result of any failure in Vintage’s construction of their homes and that those issues had existed during the warranty period. Lastly, Vintage argued that even if the claimed defects were covered under the Limited Warranty Agreements, total replacement of the components at considerable cost was neither necessary nor proper. The Fandettis asked the jury to return a verdict of $78,500.00; the Purters, a verdict of $173,544.00; and the Veals, a verdict of $75,000.00. The homeowners also intended to seek pre-judgment interest on any amounts awarded. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Vintage Homes, LLC, on all three homes.