Ruling Limiting California’s Right to Repair Act Will Increase Homeowner Suits Over Defective Construction

Wilke Fleury attorney David Frenznick anticipates an increase in residential construction defect litigation

  • Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail a friend
In effect, the court held that homeowners who suffer actual damages as a result of construction defects have a choice of remedies

Sacramento, California (PRWEB) September 13, 2013

Striking a blow to developers and their insurance carriers, a state appellate court has ruled that the California’s Right to Repair Act is not the exclusive remedy for homeowners for actual damages resulting from construction defects. (California Court of Appeal /No. G046731)

Although the issues were raised in the context of a subrogation action in which an insurance carrier sought to recoup from a developer relocation expenses it paid a homeowner, the decision has wide-ranging implications.

“We anticipate an increase in residential construction defect litigation in response to this ruling,” said David Frenznick, a construction defect lawyer at Sacramento-based Wilke Fleury who represents both homeowners and developers.

In its ruling on August 28, 2013, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District put to rest the construction industry’s claim that Right to Repair Act (Civil Code section 895 et seq.) eliminated many common law-based construction defect theories favorable to homeowners, including strict liability, and that it substituted new and much shorter statutes of limitations. (California Court of Appeal /No. G046731)

Enacted in 2002, the Act only recently became the subject of appellate review, due in part to the fact that its application was limited to homes sold after January 1, 2003.    

Viewed with relief by attorneys representing homeowners in construction defect actions, the court concluded that the Act was never intended to, and does not, establish exclusive remedies for claims for actual damages for construction defects.

“In effect, the court held that homeowners who suffer actual damages as a result of construction defects have a choice of remedies,” Frenznick said. Further, Frenznick added, “The ruling makes clear that common law claims are still governed by the longer statutes of limitations, up to 10 years for latent construction defects.”

About Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLP
Wilke Fleury is one of Sacramento’s oldest and largest law firms. For more than 80 years, the firm has served businesses, governmental entities and individuals by providing comprehensive legal services while maintaining the highest standards of integrity and client service.

The firm’s lawyers represent decades of experience and expertise in litigation; government relations and political law; construction; employment; bankruptcy; business transactions, including sales and mergers; real estate; tax; estate planning and professional liability defense. The firm has also gained a national reputation in the health care arena.

Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLP is a member of the International Society of Primerus Law Firms.


Contact