4013 REVIEW DENIED Declarations by experts who thought construction defects in plaintiffs' residences resulted from deliberate attempts by subcontractors to cut corners and that the general contractor must have noticed such defects and either expressly or impliedly consented or recklessly failed to adequately supervise were sufficient to establish a question of fact and require a trial on the issue of whether the defects resulted from wilfull misconduct and thereby satisfied an exception to the 10 year statute of repose; a general contractor may be vicariously liable for wilfull misconduct by subcontractors that resulted in construction defects.

ACOSTA v GLENFED DEVELOPMENT (Willful Misconduct) 128 CA4 1278 [See: CCP 337.15(f); Potter v Firestone 6 C4 965, T/AT 2/94; CalvilloSilva v Home Grocery 19 C4 714, T/AT 1/99; Felburg v Don Wilson 142 CA3 383; Kriegler v Eichler 269 CA2 224 ]