“California’s Right To Repair Act Is Not A Homeowner’s Exclusive Remedy When Construction Defects Cause Actual Property Damage.”

by Low, Ball & Lynch

The California Court of Appeals recently issued two decisions holding that California’s Right to Repair Act (“SB 800”) is not the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects that have also resulted in property damage.  Rather, a homeowner who incurs property damage due to construction defects may also pursue common law tort causes of action.

By way of background, the California Supreme Court held in Aas v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.4th 627 (2000), that a plaintiff cannot recover tort damages for design or construction defects unless there is resulting property damage.  This left homeowners with construction defect claims but no corresponding property damage without a common law cause of action.  The Aas case created the impetus for the California legislature to enact SB 800 or The Right to Repair Act – in 2002 (codified at Civil Code Sections 895 through 945.5.)

The Right to Repair Act (“the Act”) abrogated the Aas decision and provides a homeowner with a statutory cause of action to recover purely economic damages related to construction defects even if there is no property damage.  Under the Act builders have the absolute right to repair construction defects pursuant to pre-litigation claims presentation, repair and mediation procedures.  After the Act was passed, many in the construction industry believed that it was the exclusive statutory remedy for homeowners (or insurers in subrogation) to recover damages for construction defects.

  1.  Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC

The Fourth District of Appeal in Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC, 219 Cal.App.4th 98 (2013), considered whether the Right to Repair Act eliminated a property owner’s common law rights and remedies when actual damage has occurred.

Eric Hart bought a newly constructed home from Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (“Brookfield”).  A pipe in the home’s sprinkler system burst, causing significant damage.  Brookfield repaired the damage.  Hart’s homeowner insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”), paid Hart’s relocation expenses during repairs.  Liberty Mutual sued Brookfield in subrogation to recover their expenses.  The trial court found that Liberty Mutual’s complaint was time-barred under the Act, because Liberty Mutual did not file its complaint within four years from the close of escrow (Civil Code § 896(e)).  The Court sustained Brookfield’s demurrer and dismissed the Liberty Mutual complaint.  The Court of Appeal reversed.

The Court held that Liberty Mutual’s complaint did not fall exclusively within the Act and was, therefore, not time-barred under the four-year statute set forth in Section 896(e).  The Court first discussed the history of the Act and noted that the specific goal of the Act was to abrogate the holding in Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, 632 (no tort liability for construction defects in residential properties absent actual property damage).  However, the Act’s legislative history did not support a finding that common law claims for actual property damage were barred.  Many provisions of the Act support the conclusion that the Act covers instances where construction defects were discovered before actual damage has occurred.  Therefore, a homeowner who suffers actual damages as the result of a construction defect has a choice of remedies between the Act or their common law remedies.  In this case, just because the plaintiff did not comply with the time restraints of the Act did not mean that the plaintiff was time-barred from pursuing their common law rights against the developer.

The Court also found that just because the Act provides for a wide range of damages, it “does not mean that the Act abrogated the construction defect statute of limitations” contained in Code of Civil Procedure sections 337.1, (patent defects, four years), and 337.15 (latent defects, ten years).  The Court admitted that one of the goals of the Act was to do away with the different statute of limitations applying to latent versus patent defects where those defects did not result in actual property damage.  However, it noted that the legislature did not repeal Code of Civil Procedure sections 337.1 and 337.15.  In the Court’s view, the legislative history made clear that the intent in enacting the Act was to provide for the identification and repair of construction defects before they cause actual damage to the structure or its content.  The Act was not intended to be the sole remedy to recover actual damages incurred as the result of construction defects.  In the Court’s view, the Act itself acknowledged that other laws may apply to construction defect claims.   Therefore the Act was not the exclusive means for seeking redress once construction defects cause property damage.

The trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer was reversed.

Liberty Mutual is a very important case because it allows a plaintiff to avoid the Right to Repair Act if they have suffered actual damages.  Prior to this decision, the construction industry had fought hard to enact the Right to Repair Act and felt that the Right to Repair Act was the exclusive remedy for homeowners or insurers in subrogation actions.  If the builders did not comply with the Right to Repair Act, only then could a lawsuit be filed.  Under this decision, a property owner that has suffered actual property damage may elect to proceed under the Right to Repair Act or common law theories of liability or both.

  1. Burch v. Superior Court

In Burch v. Superior Court, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014), the Second District Court of Appeal agreed with the Fourth District Court of appeal and Liberty Mutual and held that the Right to Repair Act (“the Act”) does not provide the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects resulting in property damage.

Custom Home Builders (“Custom”), a general contractor, built a single family residence in Pacific Palisades area of Los Angeles pursuant to a written contract with the developer, Premier Homes (“Premier”).  Burch purchased the home from Premier pursuant to a sales contract.  Scott Warren and Daniel Sahar are the principals and owners of both Custom and Premier.

Burch filed a complaint and several amended complaints against Premier, Custom, Warren and Sahar for construction defects.  Burch’s third amended complaint alleged construction defects as  well as breach of the sales contract, negligence, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment and breach of contract/third party beneficiary.

Burch alleged that defendants breached their duty of care regarding construction, resulting in construction defects.  She specified that some of the construction defects lead to property damage.

Defendants Custom, Warren and Sahar moved jointly for summary judgment or summary adjudication, arguing that the Act established a statutory action for violation of the standards set forth in the Act as the exclusive remedy for damages for construction defects such that Burch’s common law claims for construction defects were barred.  Premier separately moved for summary judgment/summary adjudication on the same basis.

The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of all defendants on the second cause of action for negligence and the third cause of action for breach of implied warranty.  Burch filed a petition for writ of mandate, contending that the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy for damages for construction defects and the trial court erred by summarily adjudicating her counts for negligence and breach of implied warranty.

The Court of Appeal held that the Act does not preclude Burch from pursuing common law causes of action for negligence and breach of warranty and reversed the ruling of the trial court granting summary adjudication of the causes of action for negligence and breach of implied warranty as error.

The first court revisited the California Supreme Court case Aas v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.4th 627, 647, 652-653 (2000), where the Court held that deficiencies in residential construction were actionable in tort only if they caused property damage or personal injury.  The California legislature enacted that Right to Repair Act in 2002 which abrogated the holding in Aas to allow the recovery of damages for specified construction defects resulting in only economic loss.  Civil Code section 896 states that any action for damages arising out of or related to deficiencies in residential construction, including a builder’s liability, and to some extent the liability of a general contractor and others, is limited to liability for violation of the construction standards set forth in the Act.

However, the Act sets forth various exceptions.  Civil Code Section 943 (a) states, “…this title does not apply to any action by a claimant to enforce a contract or express contractual provisions, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute…”  Furthermore, Civil Code Section 897 exempts from the limitation of liability under the Act any defect that “causes damage.” Therefore, the Court of Appeal held that the Act does not limit or preclude common law claims for damage for construction defects that have caused property damage (citing Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 103-104).


Under Liberty Mutual and Burch a homeowner or its insurance company pursuing subrogation in California may proceed under both the Right to Repair Act and common law tort remedies if a construction defect result in property damage.  Therefore, the Right to Repair Act is not the exclusive remedy for construction defects.  These two cases will likely be used by homeowners to avoid application of the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures.  Homeowners may choose to immediately file a lawsuit in the event that their alleged construction defects have also result in corresponding property damage.  On the other hand, a builder/developer can negotiate to include contractual pre-litigation procedures and/or binding alternative dispute resolution procedures in purchase contracts as a means of resolving disputes out of court and outside of the operation of The Right to Repair Act.

Written by:

Low, Ball & Lynch

Low, Ball & Lynch on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.