Presented by
John Kenefick
Macdonald Devin, PC
Construction Conference
September 29, 2006
m a c d o n a l d d e v i n . c o m
Construction Defect
Claims Handling
New Developments and
Legislative Trends
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS
HANDLING
NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND
LEGISLATIVE TRENDS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. CONSTRUCTION DEFECT EXPOSURE ON OCCURRENCE-BASED POLICIES
INCLUDING CLASS ACTIONS A. What is “Construction Defect?” B. Four Major Categories of Defects
1. Design deficiencies 2. Material deficiencies 3. Construction deficiencies
4. Subsurface / Geotechnical Problems
C. Factors Considered in Analyzing Construction Defects
1. The builder’s compliance or non-compliance with the minimum
requirements of applicable building code(s) and/or construction standards 2. The buyer’s “reasonable expectation” [which can be quite subjective] 3. Whether the construction was performed in a good, workmanlike manner 4. Whether the materials, building products, and installed components used
were suitable for their intended purposes
5. Whether or not the design of the project architect, the structural and other consulting engineers was adhered to
6. Whether there was any premature deterioration of the building materials 7. Whether or not the original project’s plan and subsequent changes were
checked and approved by the appropriate regulatory and oversight agencies D. The Potential for Class Actions in the Construction Defect Setting
III. THEORIES OF LIABILITY
A. Negligence Theories
2. Negligence
3. Fraud
4. Breach of Fiduciary Obligation
5. Negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress
6. Nuisance 7. Products Liability 8. Professional Negligence B. Contract Theories 1. Breach of Contract 2. Breach of Warranty C. Statutory Theories IV. INDEMNIFICATION
A. Indemnification Agreements and Contractual Risk Transfer
1. Type 1 Provision
2. Type 2 Provision
3. Type 3 Provision
B. 50 State Indemnity Chart
V. DEFENSES
A. Statute of Limitations and Repose in Construction Defect Actions 1. Statute of Limitations
2. Statute of Repose
IV. NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE TRENDS
A. Major Recent State Approaches To Construction Defect Litigation 1. Alaska’s HB 151 2. California’s SB 800 3. Colorado’S HB 1161 4. Florida’s SB 1286 5. Idaho’S HB 133 6. Kansas’ HB 2294 7. Kentucky’s HB 289
8. Nevada’s Title 40 and Nevada Senate Bill 241 (2003), Amending Title 40 B. Texas Residential Construction Liability Act (HB 730)
1. Introduction
2. Texas Residential Construction Commission
a. The TRCCA Is Meant to Be Exclusive
b. TRCCA Warranties v. Common Law Humber Warranties c. TRCCA Warranties and Performance Standards
3. How the State-Sponsored Inspection and Dispute Resolution Process Works
a. 6 Steps Through the SIRP
4. Cause of Action for Breach of TRCCA Warranties and Performance Standards
5. Damages for Breach of TRCCA Warranties and Performance Standards
VI. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TEXAS CONSTRUCTION LAW A. Sovereign Immunity B. Mechanics’ Liens 1. Legislation 2. Fraudulent Liens C. Substantial Compliance D. Construction Trust Funds
1. Persons Liable
2. Factoring Company Not a “Trustee”
E. Insurance
F. Arbitration
1. Parties Bound by Arbitration Clauses 2. Procedural Vs. Substantive Arbitrability 3. Scope of Arbitration Clause
4. Arbitrator Disclosures
5. AIA Forms to Drop Mandatory Arbitration under AAA 6. AAA to Adopt Optional Appellate Rules
G. Job Site Safety
1. Recent Cases
2. OSHCON
H. Workers’ Compensation
J. Construction Litigation 1. Settlement Credits
K. Expert Testimony
L. Conditions Precedent
VII. CONCLUSION
APPENDIX A - 50 State Indemnity Chart
APPENDIX B - 50 State Statute if Limitations Chart APPENDIX C - References
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS HANDLING
NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND LEGISLATIVE TRENDS
THAT ADJUSTERS MUST KNOW
I. INTRODUCTION
The continuing growth of construction defect claims and complex multi-party litigation involving alleged defective or dangerous conditions within structures across the country over the last decade can be traced to a number of factors. First, there has been an increase in consumer expectations in every single detail of construction. From the foundation slab to the roof, including installed products and items under warranty through their manufacturers,
home buyers have sought to make the general contractor the guarantor of the perfection of each
of these items. Further, there has been an increase in the average home buyer’s awareness of
construction defect claims, thanks to several high-profile and highly publicized court battles over construction defects and mold allegations.
Second, more plaintiffs’ lawyers appear to be willing to assert construction defect claims,
while their ability to attract new homeowners to represent and their knowledge of construction law have deepened. Finally, a lack of legislation and judicial clarity in the area of construction defect litigation, construction standards or regulations, and limitations on suits for construction defects for property damage or personal injury have led to an atmosphere of, at times,
uncontrolled litigation and spiraling building, insurance, and litigation costs.
Builders’ and insurance companies’ interests are necessarily more connected than ever
before. The underwriting process, especially in states such as California and Texas, has been complicated by a wave of legislation addressing specific defects as well as the manner for settling or resolving disputes with or without proceeding to court. A robust move is afoot and many
legislatures have enacted laws to provide builders with a “Right to Repair,” which could
allow homeowners and builders to avoid lawsuits, or to limit or control them, by attempting a
good-faith repair of the claimed defect prior to the vesting of the homeowner’s right to sue.
California and other Western states have been at the forefront of this movement, as they have been at the center of the construction defect storm. Many other states have developed guidelines or regulations for categorizing defects, resolving disputes, proceeding through the
courts, and providing a coveted “Right to Repair.”
Keeping abreast of the important developments in the ever-changing world of construction defect law and trends is challenging. This paper presents an analysis of some of the major trends and developments that have altered the insurance industry and legal environment. Since these reviews provide only a brief summary, a complete reading and analysis of the cases coupled with specific legal opinions of the applicable jurisdictional laws must be completed before significant decisions are made. In providing this information, the authors do not intend to provide insurance or legal advice or necessarily to denote their position with respect to legal opinions or insurance coverage.
II. CONSTRUCTION DEFECT EXPOSURE ON OCCURRENCE-BASED POLICIES INCLUDING CLASS ACTIONS
A. What is “Construction Defect?”
What constitutes a “construction defect” is essentially defined by state laws and court definition and interpretation. In defining “construction defect,” the states and trial courts have
created a complex issue.
Generally, this is because each state has its own approach to defining “construction defect.” Not only do approaches vary widely by states, but the individual state statutory schemes
themselves can be ambiguous, and it can be left to the courts to determine the applicability of the
definition of “construction defect” on a case-by-case basis. Some states define “construction defect” as a failure of a building component to be erected in the appropriate manner. Other states
focus on whether the builder constructed the house in the manner expected by the buyer. Some states require damage to occur before the homeowner can obtain relief; others require that repairs
be made as soon as a “defect” is suspected.
B. Four Major Categories of Defects
Some states have recognized certain grounds for relief based on alleged defects in construction, which can typically be grouped into the following four major categories:
1. Design deficiencies
Buildings and systems do not work as intended (a condition alleged to be a
construction defect – i.e., roof systems may be prone to leaks due to their design
complexity), from a design standpoint. 2. Material deficiencies
Use of inferior building materials or installed components causes certain conditions (windows that leak or fail to perform and function adequately, even when properly installed).
3. Construction deficiencies
Poor quality or substandard workmanship manifests in certain conditions (i.e., water infiltration through some portion of the building structure).
4. Subsurface / Geotechnical Problems
Soil conditions that are not properly addressed during construction result in certain conditions (i.e., cracked foundations).
C. Factors Considered in Analyzing Construction Defects
The conditions typically enter the realm of construction defect litigation when plaintiffs sue, charging that defective work ultimately caused or contributed to the damage. In determining whether the specific condition under review is a construction defect, the courts consider a number of factors, including:
1. The builder’s compliance or non-compliance with the minimum
requirements of applicable building code(s) and/or construction standards 2. The buyer’s “reasonable expectation” [which can be quite subjective] 3. Whether the construction was performed in a good, workmanlike manner 4. Whether the materials, building products, and installed components used
were suitable for their intended purposes
5. Whether or not the design of the project architect, the structural and other consulting engineers was adhered to
6. Whether there was any premature deterioration of the building materials 7. Whether or not the original project’s plan and subsequent changes were
checked and approved by the appropriate regulatory and oversight agencies
D. The Potential for Class Actions in the Construction Defect Setting
Although most typical construction defect matters do not involve class action allegations, more and more class actions are being filed, which involve construction defect issues. Examples include projects involving defective component products, such as furnaces, pipe or window issues and actions involving mold issues. As a result, it is important to understand class action
requirements and protocol. Class actions are governed by both statutes and case law.
Additionally, some states have also sought guidance from Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Based upon the number of decisions, and state and federal rules, it does appear that there is a significant amount of flexibility in handling class actions. However, it is possible that the
effect of the provisions of certain state’s “Right to Cure” legislation, regulating the procedures for
construction defect litigations, may bar the certification of a class even where there are sufficient similarities to otherwise merit a class. This is arguably based on some of the legislative provisions, which require separate rights of response and repair for different homeowners.
There are at least three major types of class or representative actions in construction defect litigation, including general actions, representative unfair competition law-type actions, and consumer legal remedies-type actions. There are also a number of class-formation rules related to federal laws covering civil rights and financial transactions. In all but the general action, specific rules govern notice, pleading, and procedure. In general actions, the statute is written in an
extremely general manner and the procedures are governed by normal rules of the state’s Civil
Procedure and the presiding judge is invested with a great amount of discretion in ruling on the case.
Generally, to have a class certified, the plaintiff must prove first, that there is an
ascertainable class, and second, that common issues of law and fact predominate over those issues
that require individual adjudication. This second requirement can also be stated as a “well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact involved.” Each requirement is to be
analyzed by the court separately and distinctly, because the two prongs of the test have
independent purposes. The key requirement in showing the need for the class is that the number of potential class members is so great that joinder of each individual stakeholder would be impractical and burdensome. The representative must show a willingness and an ability to fairly and reasonably protect the rights of the other class members. Furthermore, the attorney for the representative and the class must display the qualifications required to handle the class action. The plaintiff must also show that the class action method of litigation is superior to any other method for resolving the conflicts between the parties, such that the certification of the class will benefit the plaintiffs and defendants, as well as the court and the judicial system.
When discovery is necessary before a class is certified, it is generally directed to the named parties. Often, discovery is used to assist in an early decision as to whether the matter is proper for certification. When discovery is found to be necessary to determine legal and factual issues, often times the court will place certain limitations on the discovery, including allowing only a limited time period to complete class-related discovery and limiting the number and scope of depositions.
In order to go forward in construction defect litigation with a more efficient and effective discovery process, it may be beneficial to the parties to enter into a case management order or discovery plan in order to avoid a duplication of efforts. If the parties do not agree to such a plan, it is likely that the court will order it.
In construction defect matters that involve an ascertainable class, and common issues of law and fact predominate over those issues which require individual adjudication, it may be beneficial to all parties to adjudicate these issues in one matter in order to avoid a duplication of efforts, time and costs. However, in cases where the risks outweigh the potential benefits, all efforts should be made to attack the class action allegations and oppose a Motion for
Certification. Clearly, each case needs to be evaluated on an individual basis in order to make a determination in this regard.
III. THEORIES OF LIABILITY A. Negligence Theories
Depending on jurisdiction, plaintiffs can sue on any one or a combination of the following theories of liability, each with differing types and calculations of recovery:
1. Strict liability or Negligence Per Se (i.e., violation of building code or other law) 2. Negligence (i.e., in the exercise of a reasonable degree of care, skill and knowledge
ordinarily employed by such building professionals)
3. Fraud (Intentional Misrepresentation) and Negligent Misrepresentation (i.e., on the grounds that the developer or property manager intentionally misrepresented the quality of construction in false statements and/or advertisements)
4. Breach of Fiduciary Obligation (i.e., that directors and/or officers of homeowners’
associations have failed to adequately protect their residents’ rights or interests)
5. Negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress (i.e., that, as a result of a given action or defective condition, the homeowner has suffered emotional distress)
6. Nuisance (i.e., loss of enjoyment and use of property as a result of a defective condition)
7. Products Liability (i.e., claims of a defective condition in installed components)
B. Contract Theories
Similarly, claims sounding in breach of contract, again depending on jurisdiction, allow plaintiffs to sue on any one or a combination of theories of liability. Usually contract theories allow for the recovery of attorneys fees.
1. Breach of Contract (i.e., as set forth in the purchase and sale documentation) 2. Breach of Warranty (i.e., that the completed structure was designed and
constructed in a reasonable workmanlike manner and usable for its intended purpose)
C. Statutory Theories
Many jurisdictions have statutes which protect against consumer fraud and
misrepresentation. These can be attractive theories for suits against builders or component manufacturers, such as window and door manufacturers, HVAC manufacturers and materials
suppliers. As with contract theories, most allow for recovery of attorneys fees. Some states’ laws
provide for exemplary damages, such as treble damages.
VII. INDEMNIFICATION
D. Indemnification Agreements and Contractual Risk Transfer
Although the “transfer of risk by contract” via indemnity or hold-harmless agreements has
long been common practice in the construction industry, recent trends in these types of
arrangements have varying implications and exposures for developers, general contractors and subcontractors. There are commonly three types of express contractual indemnity.
1. Type 1 Provision
This type contains an express and unequivocal expression of intent that the
indemnitor is to indemnify the indemnitee for, among other things, the indemnitee’s own
active negligence, either standing alone or together with the negligence of the indemnitor.
2. Type 2 Provision
This type contains a compromise by the indemnitor to indemnify the indemnitee harmless, but does not expressly state that the indemnitee will be indemnified for his own negligence. Any active negligence on the part of the indemnitee defeats its right to be indemnified.
3. Type 3 Provision
This type provides that the indemnitor will indemnify the indemnitee for any
liabilities caused solely by the indemnitor’s negligence, but not for any liabilities caused by the indemnitee’s negligence. Any active or passive negligence on the part of the
indemnitee defeats its right to be indemnified. Whether a party is actively or passively negligent is a question of fact for the jury to decide.
Many states have case law or statutory regulations which set up anti-indemnity rules for construction projects. Most states have recognized the danger of permitting small subcontractors to indemnify, or be held to provide indemnity for, larger portions of
construction projects than would be fair and equitable. Some states prohibit contracts that force a small subcontractor to have such responsibility, while others strictly regulate the circumstances under which such types of contracts will be permitted.
4. 50 State Indemnity Chart
Appendix A contains a chart with a brief analysis of state laws on the subject of indemnity.
VIII. COMMON ENDORSEMENTS AND EXCLUSIONS FOR CONTRACTOR RISKS
IX. DEFENSES
E. Statute of Limitations and Repose in Construction Defect Actions 1. Statute of Limitations
The “Statute of Limitations” refers to the period in which a suit must be brought,
beginning on the date set by statute, which usually relates to the close of escrow or consummation of contract of sale.
2. Statute of Repose
By contrast, a “Statute of Repose” is a time period within which all suits must be
brought, usually beginning on the same date as the statute of limitations. Where the periods of time differ, the statute of limitations may be tolled or extended for a reason set forth in the statute, such as where discovery occurs in the final year of the limitations period.
3. Statute of Limitations Chart
The chart in Appendix B addresses major statutes of limitations relating to personal injury, product liability, breach of contract, and general construction defect. However, many states have different statutes of limitations relating to discovery of injury or injury-in-fact, which may be shorter than the general periods of limitations relating to the contract of sale or close of escrow.
Therefore, though a comment below may describe an “eight-year statute of limitations” and a “ten-year statute of repose” on a personal injury action, there may
actually be a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions in that state. The labels applied below only address the period a homeowner has to bring a personal injury or other action within the limitations period set forth in the selected statute sections.
The chart on the following pages addresses major statutes of limitations and repose relating to personal injury, product liability, breach of contract, and general construction
defect. Generally speaking, a “statute of limitations” is a period of time in which a claim
may be brought, beginning from the time of discovery of an injury. Generally speaking, a
“statute of repose” acts as a bar on any claims, and usually starts on a certain date, such as
closing of escrow, transfer of title, or occupancy, varying by state. Where the periods of time differ, the statute of limitations may be tolled or extended for a reason set forth in the
statute, such as where discovery occurs in the final year of the limitations period. Most states have many, often overlapping and duplicative statutes of limitations.
However, the chart below contains extremely abbreviated summaries of selected cited statutes. Many states have different statutes of limitations relating to discovery of injury or injury-in-fact, which may be shorter than the general periods of repose relating to the contract of sale or close of escrow. Therefore, though a comment below may describe
an “eight-year statute of limitations” and a “ten-year statute of repose” for construction
defects cases, there may actually be a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions in that state. The descriptions and analysis below serve as an attempt to provide a quick reference guide for statute of limitations research, and a citation that we believe is helpful. The analysis should not be relied upon for legal citation.
IV. NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE TRENDS
The growing national trend towards an expansion of construction defect litigation has created at least three concerns for consideration by legislators, lobbyists, and attorneys. First among these concerns is a standard by which constructed homes may be judged to determine whether a defect exists at all. The second concern is to minimize the burden on the judicial system and afford builders the opportunity to avoid having to constantly defend their work in the court system. Finally, there is a concern that the nature of buying and owning a home requires that clarity be lent to the issue of limitations and repose periods for asserting complaints and lawsuits based on claimed defects.
Many states have tackled these issues with differing laws. In this year alone (2005), many
states have passed some version of a “right to repair” or “notice and opportunity” law, including
Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, South Carolina and West Virginia. Those states join Arizona, California, Michigan and Washington, while legislators in Ohio, Oregon and Pennsylvania continue to consider such a rule. Clearly, a form of
law permitting a builder to address a homeowner’s claimed defects and attempt to make a
curative repair and avoid litigation appears to be the favored form of legislation for controlling the sheer number of construction defect lawsuits and attempting an alternative method for resolving these disputes, rather than simple or complex litigation.
Other states have attempted to develop more clearly-defined codes for construction
standards. The most prominent of these states have been Texas and Nevada. Texas’ new
legislation calls for a panel of experts to promulgate a set of construction codes, and also sets forth a method for litigating a construction defect case.
As construction defect litigation continues to expand and draw critical resources from state court systems, each state in the nation will need to review its rules, regulations, and statutes to attempt to respond to the growing volume of complaints and suits. Many states have already begun the process of modifying state codes and case law is developing to address construction
defect claims, causes of action, and statutes of limitations, as well as alternative dispute resolution processes.
This process of analyzing state schemes for managing the often extremely complex process of initiating and proving construction defect claims will undoubtedly continue until states are able to, if not stem the tide of litigation, then at least keep the litigation from becoming over-burdensome to the court systems.
Insurers will need to take an active part in managing their own insureds’ responsiveness to
claims of defects, in order to bring the claims process to a conclusion without having to defend complicated defect claims in the courts. In addition, insurers will need to consider the
requirements of their respective states’ new legislation in order to advise their clients of the
proper manner in which to quickly and inexpensively comply with the statutory requirements.
A. Major Recent State Approaches To Construction Defect Litigation 1. Alaska’s HB 151
The purpose of this law is to limit court actions which may be brought for claimed construction defects. Any construction contract must contain notice of the construction
professional’s right to cure a defect before the homeowner may file an action. Potential
plaintiffs must give the construction professional notice of the claim within one year after the defect is discovered, subject to a 10-year statute of limitations which begins running from the date of substantial completion. The statute of limitations is tolled between the time notice is served and the time the plaintiff should reasonably understand that settlement will not succeed. Response to the notice must include an offer to inspect the dwelling, offer to compromise or settle by monetary payments without inspection, or a statement that the claim is disputed and the defect will not be repaired or settled. Refusal by the homeowner to allow inspection creates a rebuttable presumption that damages could have been mitigated and the homeowner chose not to mitigate his or her damages. If inspection is allowed, the construction professional must submit a written statement within 14 days offering to repair the defect, to compromise and settle, or stating that the
professional disputes the claim and will not repair the defect. Acceptance of the claim must occur within 30 days. If a reasonable offer is rejected, the claimant may bring suit immediately, but may not recover an amount that exceeds the reasonable cost of repairs or the amount of the offer. The court may deny attorney fees and may award attorney fees and costs to the construction professional. Any insurance compensation shall be deducted from the award.
2. California’s SB 800
SB 800 is intended to be a revolutionary “next step” in construction defect
litigation, following in the footsteps of the Calderon process. It requires homeowners to allow builders the right to repair a home or to waive this right, before the homeowners are allowed to file a lawsuit for construction defects.
For homeowners, it may provide additional rights, including a detailed list of defects that are actionable. Overall, it appears that the most important goal of the new legislation, which applies to all homes sold on or after January 1, 2003, is to minimize litigation and allow a homeowner and builder the opportunity to address and repair claimed construction defects without proceeding to litigation.
SB 800 has a “Bill of Rights”, that sets forth actionable defects. These include
water intrusion, defects in plumbing and drainage systems, defects in soil and structural components that allow cracking or deterioration of the home, and interference with the proper operation of installed components such as an HVAC unit, electrical systems, doors, and other components. The law includes qualifications for heating and air conditioning systems, roofing materials, exterior wall finishes and fixtures, and ceramic tiling.
SB 800 also sets forth particular statutes of limitations for original homeowners as well as successors-in-interest. There is a one-year statute of limitations, running from the close of escrow for defects in irrigation and drainage systems. There is also a statute of limitations of one year, running from the date of occupancy of the proximate unit, for any failure to comply with noise transmission standards for attached structures.
There is a two-year statute of limitations, running from the close of escrow, on decay in untreated wood posts and defects in landscaping systems and installed dryer ducts. The statue of limitations is four years from the close of escrow for plumbing and sewer defects, electrical system defects, defects in exterior pathways, driveways, hardscape, and similar improvements, and corrosion in untreated steel fencing.
The statute of limitations is five years from the close of escrow for paint or stain decay.
The law mandates that builders provide home buyers with a one-year express written limited warranty covering the fit and finish of a number of installed items. SB 800 is intended to simplify the construction defect litigation process. It is intended to allow the builder to engage in a repair that would hopefully eliminate the impetus for the
homeowner to sue the builder for money to engage in repairs. It is also supposed to give builders guidelines regarding the specific types of standards to be applied to determine if an item is defective or not, and therefore give homeowners notice as to what their rights are with regard to their homes.
The practical effect of SB 800 is that it compels the builder who chooses to utilize the process to engage in repair work, document production, and pay for mediation without any guarantee that these efforts will prevent a lawsuit from going forward.
Indeed, builders may be required to admit that the claimed defect is not in compliance with the law before going forward with repairs. These admissions and repairs may then be admissible in a court of law in a subsequent suit over the defect.
The law also hurts homeowners, since each and every defect must be made subject to a different repair and mediation process, so that water seepage through window
flashing (installed by a contractor) may be required to be handled separately from water
seepage through the window frames (a “manufactured product” under the law), or
through the door next to the window, or the ceiling above the window.
SB 800 is probably the nation’s most comprehensive new law providing
homeowners and builders a “legal” opportunity to address claimed defects before resorting
to litigation. The right to repair is accompanied by many associated problematic issues,
such as the duty to repair to the owner’s satisfaction or risk facing a lawsuit, the duty to
notify homeowners of their rights, the duty to turn over all documentation to the homeowner within 30 days, and the duty to pay for mediation. Additionally, there is the possibility that compliance with the terms of SB 800 will become as costly as protracted litigation, while still leaving open the possibility of litigation. The burden of this increased cost will be passed on to insurers, resulting in less than overwhelming favorable support amongst some insurers for that reason. The promise of the law lies in the possibility that fewer suits will rise to the level of litigation due primarily to the repairs that the builders will be able to make. The actual realities and ramifications of the SB 800 legislation remain to be seen.
3. Colorado’S HB 1161
The purpose of the act is to limit claims for damages filed against construction professionals. In any construction defect action brought, the homeowner must serve on the builder an initial list of construction defects.
Negligence claims are prohibited if they are brought on the basis of failure to construct a residential improvement complying with building codes or standards unless there was actual or probable damage to or loss of use of real or personal property.
Notice of a potential claim must be given to the construction professional 75 days prior to filing an action, or 90 days in the case of commercial properties. The statute of limitations is then tolled for 60 days. The claimant must then allow an inspection to be completed within 30 days of service of the notice.
Within 30 days of completion of the inspection, or 45 days in the case of residential property, the construction professional may send an offer to settle or an agreement to remedy the claim. The claimant must accept in writing within 15 days of delivery. If the offer is made but not accepted, or if notice is not responded to, the construction professional is liable for treble damages if the claimant can show that the consumer protection act has been violated. However, treble damages and attorney fees awarded may not exceed $250,000.
If no offer is made, the claimant may file an action. Any action brought which is not in compliance with these procedures is stayed until compliance is achieved. No claimant may recover more than actual damages unless he can prove that the consumer protection act was violated, and that either (a) the monetary offer to settle is less than 85% of the amount awarded as actual costs; or (b) the reasonable cost to complete the offer to remedy is less than 85% of the amount awarded as actual damages. Damages in personal injury cases where non-economic damages may be awarded are limited to $250,000, and these actions are not subject to treble damages. These amounts may be adjusted in the future to accommodate for inflation.
4. Florida’s SB 1286
This law provides for notice and opportunity to repair defects and sets forth prerequisites for bringing a construction defects action. Notice must be provided by the homeowner 60 days before filing the action. The homeowner claimant should serves notice within 15 days after the discovery of the defect (but failure to do so does not always bar the filing of an action). Notice tolls the statute of limitations to either 60 days after the notice is received or 30 days after the end of the repair period.
Inspection by the builder must occur within 5 business days after service of the notice, and notice must be forwarded within 10 days by the professional to each
subcontractor who may reasonably be held responsible. Each subcontractor has the right to inspect the dwelling within 5 days of receipt of notice. A written response must be served within 25 days, either offering to remedy the defect, offering to compromise and settle, or stating that the defect is disputed. The offer must be accepted or rejected within 15 days, or 45 if it is an association. Rejection must contain a statement of the settlement
offer with the word “Rejected” printed on it. An offer to settle or cure the defect does not
operate as an admission of liability. Any construction contract must contain conspicuous
notice to the homeowner of the builder’s right to offer to cure the defect or pay to settle. 5. Idaho’S HB 133
The “Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act” provides that notice of a claimed
defect must be provided to the builder and providing notice operated to toll the statute of limitations for 60 days after the period of time during which the filing of an action is barred. Within 21 days of receipt of notice of the claim by the builder, the builder must serve a written response requesting an inspection, offering to compromise, or stating that the claim is disputed, at which time the claimant homeowner may file an action in court.
If the inspection or settlement offer is rejected, written notice must be served and an action may be filed. If no response is given within 30 days, the offer may be terminated upon written notice. If inspection is allowed, the builder must serve within 14 days a written offer to remedy, an offer to compromise and settle, or a statement that the builder will not engage in a repair. Rejection of an offer to repair must be in writing, and may be withdrawn upon notice to the claimant if no response is received within 30 days. Unlike
some states, offers or proposals are not considered admissions of liability and are not admissible in any subsequent court action.
Damages are limited to the reasonable cost to cure, the reasonable expense of necessary temporary housing, the reduction in market value, and reasonable and necessary attorney fees. The total damages may not exceed either the amount the homeowner paid for the residence or the current market value of a like residence with no defect, whichever is greater.
If the builder fails to make a reasonable offer, fails to make a reasonable attempt to complete offered repairs, or fails to complete in a workmanlike manner the repairs specified, the limitations on damages are not applicable. If the homeowner claimant denies a request to inspect, unreasonably rejects an offer, or does not provide the builder with a reasonable opportunity to repair, the claimant may not recover an amount in excess of: the reasonable cost of the offered repairs or the amount of the reasonable monetary settlement offer. Further, the homeowner is entitled to the amount of reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred prior to rejection of the offer. The act also provides seven affirmative defenses.
6. Kansas’ HB 2294
This law requires that the contractor be given notice prior to filing of an action by a homeowner. If no notice is given, the action is dismissed without prejudice. The statute of limitations is tolled if the homeowner gives notice within 90 days of entry of the order of dismissal of the action without prejudice. If notice is given, the statute is tolled for 180 days after either the date the notice is mailed, the date the contractor agrees to make payment or the contractor remedies the defect, whichever is later.
Within 15 days of receipt of notice, the builder must submit a copy of the notice to each subcontractor who may be responsible. Within 30 days of this service, the contractor must serve a written response proposing inspection, offering to remedy the defect, offering to compromise and settle, or stating that the defect is disputed. If the contractor fails to do so or fails to fully perform the terms of his offer, a claim may be brought without
further notice. The inspection must occur within 30 days of the claimant’s notice to the
contractor. Within 30 days after the inspection, the contractor shall serve a written offer to remedy the defect, offer to compromise and settle, or a statement that the contractor will not proceed further. Any acceptance must be served within 30 days.
Under this law, the contractor may provide notice to an insurer who issued a policy covering all or part of the conduct or business of the contractor or subcontractor. This notice constitutes the making of a claim under the policy. Any construction contract under
this act must contain conspicuous notice of the contractor’s right to offer to repair defects.
An individual may not offer to or provide anything of monetary value to a property manager or someone in an association to discourage the filing of a construction defect claim, or may be charged with a misdemeanor. An association may bring a construction
defect claim only upon a vote of the association’s member owners during a meeting at
which a majority of the votes are allocated, and upon a vote of the executive board. Notice must be given to each owner at least 21 days before the meeting.
7. Kentucky’s HB 289
The “Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act” states that, for a construction defect
claim, the construction professional is not liable for (a) the failure of a person other than the professional or his agent, employee, or subcontractor to take reasonable action to reduce damages or maintain the residence; normal wear and tear, shrinkage, and other normal issues, or (b) the repair or remediation of any defect disclosed in writing in clear
language and signed by the claimant prior to the homeowner’s purchase of the residence.
Written notice must be served on the construction professional prior to the filing of the claim. Within 21 days, the professional must respond in writing, either proposing inspection, offering to compromise and settle, or stating that the claim is disputed.
Rejection of the builder’s response by the homeowner must be written. If not received within 30 days after the claimant’s receipt of the response, the construction professional
may terminate the offer by serving written notice and the claimant may then bring an action.
Within 14 days after completion of the inspection, the professional must serve a written offer to cure the defect, an offer to compromise and settle, or a written statement that the construction professional will not proceed further to remedy the defect. Rejection or acceptance must be in writing. The offer may be withdrawn upon written notice if no
response is received within 30 days from the claimant. Notice of the contractor’s right to
inspect must be in the contract.
8. Nevada’s Title 40
The State of Nevada established its approach to construction defect disputes in
Title 40, Sections 600- 695 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. Nevada’s long-established “Title 40” defines several critical terms, including what structures are included in the code,
what is covered by a warranty, and who is covered by the code. Title 40 also clearly sets
forth the contractor’s liabilities, responsibilities, and the limits on what is guaranteed by
the contractor.
Title 40 grew out of a push by home builders to limit exposure for punitive damages in the construction defect context and to mediate prior to full-blown litigation. Homeowners and consumer-rights advocates, on the other hand, sought to protect home
buyers’ rights to pursue actions and obtain full recovery, including expert fees, legal fees,
Title 40 requires written notice on most actions arising out of claimed defects, and provides for informal inspection, written response, and document production. Title 40
limits recovery by the homeowner to reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs of repairs, reduction
in market value, loss of use, reasonable value of damage caused by repairs, and various additional costs and interest. The contractor must provide a pre-litigation settlement proposal, and homeowners must accept any reasonable proposal or risk forfeiting several
rights. Title 40 is Nevada’s attempt to respond to a crisis it is facing, perhaps rivaled only
by the situation in California, which threatens to destabilize the construction and
insurance industries in Nevada. Nevada’s legislature has also enacted new provisions with
the same goal as Title 40, including SB 241, discussed below.
9. Nevada Senate Bill 241 (2003), Amending Title 40
The purpose of these amendments to Title 40 is to establish provisions for notice and a right to inspect and repair prior to commencement of pre-litigation mediation provided for under Title 40.
The act also establishes the State Contractor’s Board as a resource to answer
questions and assist in resolving disputes concerning matters which may relate to construction defects.
Under the amendments, the homeowner is required to provide notice to the builder of a claimed defect. Within 60 days after receiving notice of the defect, the builder may respond to the homeowner and may also provide a disclosure of the notice to all other
homeowners within the claimant homeowner’s development. The statement to all other
homeowners must advise them of the claimed defect and must include a statement advising the homeowners that they have 30 days to request an inspection or forfeit certain rights under the Act.
Within 30 days of receipt of notice, the contractor must forward a copy of the notice to each subcontractor to whom the contractor reasonably believes it is responsible. No later than 30 days after receipt of notice, the subcontractor shall inspect the defect and provide the contractor with a written statement indicating whether they have elected to repair the defect, including a cost estimate.
The contractor must respond to the homeowner within 90 days, stating whether it has elected to repair the defect, settle the claim, or deny liability for the claimed defect. If the builder opts to repair, the repairs must be completed within 105 days after receipt of the notice if there are four or fewer owners named in the notice. If there are five or more homeowners named in the original notice, the builder has up to 150 days to complete the repairs. If for any reason the repairs cannot be completed within the time period specified in the Act, the builder and each homeowner shall set a reasonable time.
An election to repair may not be made conditional upon a release of liability. Within 30 days of repair, the contractor must provide the owner with a statement of the repairs made.
If a contractor has received notice of a defect, they may submit it to the insurance company, which must treat the claim as if a civil action has been brought. Failure to present such a claim to the insurer does not relieve the insurer of any duty under the policy to the contractor.
B. Texas Residential Construction Liability Act (HB 730) 1. Introduction
Prior to the 2003 Legislative Session, residential construction claims were
governed in large part by the Residential Construction Liability Act, Texas Property Code
Section 27.001, et seq., (“RCLA”). Residential construction claims also typically involve
claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act, Texas
Business & Commerce Code Section 17.41 et seq. (“DTPA”). While the 2003 Legislative
Session brought some modifications to the RCLA, it also brought about House Bill 730.
Included in HB 730 was the Texas Residential Construction Commission Act (“TRCCA”) which created the Texas Residential Construction Commission (“Commission”). The
RCLA is still the comprehensive law governing such claims, but it necessarily incorporates the TRCCA and the Commission, given the pervasive effect of the Commission on
residential construction claims in Texas after the passage of the TRCCA.
The Commission is established to review and pass judgment on residential construction claims. It is a state agency created to assist homeowners and
builders/remodelers who are not able to reconcile disputes involving alleged defects that become apparent after construction is completed. The Commission is designed to work
much like a review board and in some respects will be similar to the workers’
compensation board. Texas is unique in that only two other states have state sponsored dispute resolution processes. Arizona and Oregon have established a similar process to
Texas’s, while five states (California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, and Hawaii) have
some level of state-sponsored review of construction related issues.
The Commission is charged with setting building and performance standards for workmanship and these standards are the only warranties that run with residential construction in Texas. The Commission is also responsible for reviewing and making determinations concerning claims by homeowners. The determinations made by the Commission are not the end of the road for a homeowner, as a homeowner may still proceed with a lawsuit or demand arbitration after a decision by the Commission.
However, what a homeowner is ultimately able to pursue with a lawsuit is limited by the standards set by the Commission. The homeowner will also have to overcome a rebuttable
presumption created by the Commission’s findings in order to prevail in a lawsuit against
1
TEX.PROP.CODE ANN. § 401.002(6) (Vernon Supp. 2005).
2
TEX. PROP . CODE ANN . § 27.001(7) (Vernon Supp. 2005).
3
House Comm. On Regulated Bus. Indus., Bill Analysis, Tex. H.B . 730, 78th Leg., R.S. (2003); see TEX.
PROP. CODE ANN. title 16 (Vernon Supp. 2005).
Needless to say, the changes brought about by the TRCCA have had and will have a significant impact on the litigation of residential construction claims in Texas. The extent and scope of that impact is uncertain. The TRCCA created the Commission to oversee resolution of disputes between builders and homeowners based on an
independent inspector’s recommendations. This paper explores the scope of the TRCCA,
how it is applied, and its interaction with the RCLA. Additionally, this paper evaluates the
TRCCA’s newly adopted warranties, dispute resolution process, and what actions must be
taken for pursuing damages for alleged construction defects. Finally, the paper discusses the RCLA and its provisions after the enactment of the TRCCA.
2. Texas Residential Construction Commission
The mission of the Commission is to “provide Texas homeowners and the
residential construction industry an opportunity to resolve differences through a neutral
dispute resolution process and ongoing education.” The TRCCA is an initial step that
homeowners or builders must take before pursuing an action for damages or other such relief arising from residential construction defects.
The TRCCA only applies to “homes,” which are defined as “real property and improvements and appurtenances for a single-family house or duplex.”1 While the TRCCA
applies to construction defects occurring in single-family homes and duplexes, it does not apply to multifamily residences (apartment complexes, condominiums, etc.) even though those structures are residential structures.
Interestingly, the RCLA applies not only to single- family homes and duplexes, but also to owners of triplexes, quadruplexes, and individual condominiums in a condominium complex.2
The new Texas Residential Construction Commission Act is designed to establish a Commission to handle disputes between a homeowner and builder involving residential construction defects arising after construction is complete.3 The Commission is designed to
handle virtually all aspects of residential construction claims. It is intended to be all encompassing and to apply to every residential construction claim made in the state of
4
The Beaumont Court of Appeals evaluated allegations by a home builder that the homeowners did not properly comply the with provisions of the TRCCA when they asserted construction defects. In re Hall, 2005 W L 3440620, at *1 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 2005, no pet. h.). The homeowners argued the TRCCA did not apply to them because their house was built, the defects were discovered, and their causes of action accrued prior to September 1, 2003, the effective date. Id. at *1. The trial court denied the builder’s motion
to dismiss and the appellate court refused to issue a writ of mandamus. Id. The court concluded that the statutory language is not ambiguous. The court held “[i]f the alleged construction defect was discovered before September 1, 2003, the state-sponsored inspection and dispute resolution process does not apply to the dispute.” Id. at *2. Therefore, the builder did not show the court that the TRCCA was invalid. Id.
5
Texas Residential Construction Commission, FAQ - The Commission, http://www.trcc.state.tx.us/faq/faq_ commission.htm (last visited Jan. 10, 2006); see TEX. PROP. CODE ANN . § 406.001(a)(1)-(4) (Vernon Supp. 2005).
6
Texas Residential Construction Commission, FAQ -The Commission, http://www.trcc.state.tx.us/faq/faq_ commission.htm (last visited Jan. 10, 2006).
7
Id.
8
TEX. PROP . CODE AN N. § 408.001(2) (Vernon Supp. 2005).
9
§ 408.001(1).
10
§ 408.001(1)-(4).
Texas that accrues on or after September 1, 2003. How the Commission will go about addressing the claims that come before the effective date, however, is not at all clear.4
The Commission currently includes four builders who will hold certificates of registration, Art Cuevas, John Krugh, Glenda Mariott, and Scott Porter; three members of the general public, Patrick Cordero, Paulo Flores, and Mickey Redwine; one engineer practicing in the area of residential construction, Ken Davis; and one inspector practicing in the area of residential construction, Lewis Brown.5 Patrick Cordero was selected by the governor to serve as the Chair of the Commission.6 Each commission member will serve a
staggered term.7
The Commission is charged with setting the standards for residential construction by establishing limited statutory warranty and building and performance standards.8 The
Commission also has the responsibility for presiding over disputes involving residential construction claims.9 This responsibility includes setting up a dispute resolution process complete with persons to review and investigate claims (third party inspectors) and persons to hear and make determinations on claims, establishing the building and performance standards and limited statutory warranties, and adopting and setting rules to administer all
11 § 416. 12 § 401.003(a). 13 § 416.005. 14 § 416.011.
15 Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. No. GA-0233 (2004). 16
Id.
One of the Commission’s first duties is to register all builders and contractors in the
state of Texas.11 For the first time, Texas home builders and contractors who will be
engaging in residential construction in Texas must be registered and get a certificate of registration with the state.
The TRCCA defines “builder” as:
any business entity or individual who, for a fixed price, commission, fee, wage, or other compensation, constructs or supervises or manages the construction of: (1) a new home; (2) a material improvement to a home, other than an improvement solely to replace or repair a roof of an existing home; or (3) an
improvement to the interior of an existing home when the cost of the work exceeds $20,000.12
There are certain minimal requirements including: any individual applying must be a citizen or legal resident and be over the age of 18 and any corporation, partnership, or other entity that applies must be approved to transact business in the state.13 The
Commission is also supposed to perform background checks on any applicants and it must be satisfied with the honesty, trustworthiness, and integrity of the applicant before a
certificate will be issued. The statute also sets forth a “Star Builder” designation that is
designed to provide an elevated status for those builders who maintain an excellent reputation.14 This designation should be a useful marketing tool for any builder who qualifies for such designation.
Concerns were raised regarding enforcing the registration requirements for builders. The Commission subsequently asked the Office of the Attorney General for an opinion as to whether or not the Office of the Attorney General may seek an injunction against a builder who has not complied with the TRCCA. The Attorney General issued an
opinion finding that the Administrative Procedure Act allows the Commission to “refer
names of builders that have failed to register with the commission, a violation of a commission rule, to the attorney general, who may seek injunctive relief for those
violations.”15 The Attorney General opined that injunctive relief is permitted even though
17
See TEX. PROP . CODE ANN . § 426.005.
18 See id. 19 § 27.001(4). 20 § 426.001(a). 21 § 401.004(b)(1)-(4).
a. The TRCCA Is Meant to Be Exclusive
The TRCCA is meant to be the exclusive mechanism for adjudicating residential construction claims, at least initially. The goal of the statute is to provide the sole rights and obligations between a homeowner and a builder.17 It also is intended to create the only
cognizable cause of action available against a builder or third party warranty company with regard to construction defects.18
“Construction defect” is defined differently under RCLA than under TRCCA; however, RCLA’s definition was amended to incorporate the TRCCA’s definition for all claims to which the TRCCA applies, but retains the original definition for “any other action.”19 The TRCCA applies only to “construction defects” and is not applicable to
claims solely for personal injury, survival, or wrongful death, or claims for damages solely to goods and not the home.20
The TRCCA’s definition of construction defect does not include claims for
construction defects which arise wholly or partly from:
(1) the negligence of a person other than the builder or an agent, employee, subcontractor, or supplier of the builder;
(2) failure of a person other than the builder or an agent, employee, subcontractor, or supplier of the builder to: (A) take reasonable action to mitigate any damages that arise from a defect; or (B ) take reasonable action to maintain the home;
(3) normal wear, tear, or deterioration; or
(4) normal shrinkage due to drying or settlement of construction components within the tolerance of building and performance standards.21
The statute’s language can be interpreted to read that any of these claims are not subject to the Commission’s control. The question arises what to do with construction
22
§ 430.011(b) (referencing Section 27.004(g) of the RCLA; several of the provisions of the TRCCA and the RCLA work interchangeably as evidenced by the reference in the TRCCA to the RCLA as to what type of damages are recoverable).
23
§ 426.005©).
24
§ 426.005(d).
25
See e.g. Centex Homes v. Buecher, 95 S.W.3d 266 (Tex. 2002).
26
TEX. BUS. & COMM . CODE AN N. § 2.105 (Vernon 2002).
27 426 S.W .2d 554 (T ex. 1968). 28 643 S.W .2d 392 (T ex. 1982). 29 741 S.W .2d 349, 353 (Tex. 1987).
In addition to the homeowner’s claim for the construction defect(s) and the
associated costs of repair, the TRCCA also provides for the recovery of other economical damages, including reasonable expenses for temporary housing during the repair period (additional living expenses - ALE) and reasonable and necessary engineering and consulting fees.22 The statute also makes clear that if a suit is brought involving a
construction defect after a determination by the Commission, then any claim for personal injury, damages to personal goods, or consequential damages must be brought along with the claim for construction defect.23 The TRCCA further provides that it is not applicable at all to a subrogation claim.24
b. TRCCA Warranties v. Common Law Humber Warranties
Prior to the enactment of the TRCCA, the only warranties that existed for construction of new homes were the implied warranty of habitability and the implied warranty of construction in a good and workmanlike manner.25 The Texas Business and
Commerce Code was not implicated in the purchase of a residence because the sale of real
property did not fall within the Code’s definition of “goods.”26 The Texas Supreme Court
answered this problem in Humber v. Morton.27 The court held that there are warranties implied in law including the implied warranty of fitness. There was no specific definition of the implied warranty although the court determined it would include performing work in a good and workmanlike manner.
In G-W-L, Inc. v. Robichaux, the supreme court evaluated whether contractors could validly provide express warranties as a means of replacing the implied warranties, even though the express warranties provided much less protection.28 The court held that buyers should protect themselves by reading the contract before signing. Then in Melody Home Manufacturing Co. v. Barnes, the Texas Supreme Court broadened the scope of the implied warranties to service transactions in order to cover repair services performed on existing homes.29 The court held that the implied warranties could not be waived or
30
Id. at 355.
31
95 S.W.3d 266, 272 (Tex. 2003).
32
See e.g., id.
33
See e.g., id.
34 40 S.W.3d 666, 673 (Tex. App.–Austin 2001, no pet.).
disclaimed by contract and overruled Robichaux to the extent that it conflicted with the
court’s opinion.30
Even after these cases, Texas courts still did not adequately distinguish between the warranty of habitability and the warranty of workmanship. Then in Centex v. Buecher, the Texas Supreme Court defined these warranties differently.31 The implied warranty of
good workmanship requires the builder to construct the home in the same manner as would a generally proficient builder engaged in similar work and performing under similar
circumstances; it serves as a “gap-filler” or “default warranty” and applies unless and until
the parties express a contrary intention.32 The other implied warranty, the implied warranty
of habitability, requires the builder to provide a house that is safe, sanitary, and otherwise fit for human habitation; in other words, this implied warranty only protects new home buyers from conditions that are so defective that the property is unsuitable for its intended use as a home.33
Through the enactment of the TRCCA, homeowners lose any protection offered by the implied warranties of construction in a good and workmanlike manner and
habitability. Texas law previously established that a homeowner had no claim for breach of implied warranties against a subcontractor in Codner v. Arellano. In that case, a
homeowner sued a subcontractor, alleging that the subcontractor negligently poured the
foundation of the homeowner’s residence and that he violated the DTPA by breaching an
implied warranty of good- and-workmanlike performance in the construction of the foundation.34 The court found that no Texas case “implies a warranty of
good-and-workmanlike performance from a builder’s subcontractor directly to the homeowner.”
Before the enactment of the TRCCA, no uniformity existed for the warranties and performance standards in construction defect cases.
c. TRCCA Warranties and Performance Standards
Prior to the TRCCA, the minimum warranty standards under the law (i.e., implied warranties, as those were the only ones existing absent an express warranty) were vague, somewhat misunderstood, and subject to debate and argument. The Commission was charged with developing limited statutory warranties for residential construction projects in Texas. The Commission was provided very little guidance by the Legislature as to the standards they were to seek to establish in the scope of the contemplated warranties or any other details concerning this relatively important task. It took several months after the
35
Senate Comm. on Bus. & Comm., Texas Residential Construction Commission, Interim Report to the 79th
Texas Legislature 6. 36 10 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 304 , pmbl.(2005) 37 Id.. 38 Id. 39 Id. 40 Id 41
Senate Comm. on Bus. & Comm., Texas Residential Construction Commission, Interim Report to the 79th
Texas Legislature 6. 42 10 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 304, pmbl. (2005). 43 10 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 304.10-.33 (2005). 44 10 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 304.50-.52 (2005).
enactment of HB 730 just to get the Commission appointed and established. Once it was up and running, the Commission went to work and ultimately released a working draft of the warranties in May 2004 to allow all interested parties to participate in creating the warranties.35 The Commission entered into an interagency agreement with Texas A&M’s construction sciences department to develop the construction warranties and standards.36
The Commission worked in tandem with Texas A&M to develop a comprehensive set of warranties and standards for Texas homeowners and builders.37 The Commission held
town hall meetings to garner public support for the new warranties and standards.38 The rules were published in the Texas Register on October 22, 2004 and a public hearing was conducted on November 9, 2004.39 The Commission adopted the warranties and
standards after receiving and addressing all responses regarding concerns for the warranties and standards.40
The Commission endorsed the warranties stating that “with clear objective criteria,
the homeowner will know what to expect from the builder and the builder will know what
is expected.”41 The Commission stated that the warranties “will apply to all residential
construction which begins on or after June 1, 2005, if the construction is for a new home, material improvement of an existing home or an interior renovation to an existing home
that costs in excess of $20,000.”42
The warranties only apply to construction which begins on or after June 1, 2005. Any residential construction that began prior to June 1, 2005, will be governed by warranties and building and performance standards applicable to construction before that date.
The length of the warranty depends on the type of component. The statutorily mandated warranty periods are: one (1) year for workmanship and materials;43 two (2)
45
10 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 304.100 (2005). 46
Texas Residential Construction Commission, FAQ - Warranties..., http://www.trcc.state.tx.us/faq/faq_
warranty.htm (last visited Jan. 11, 2006).
47
TEX. PROP. CODE ANN . § 430.007.
48
§ 430.006.
(10) years for major structural components.45 Warranty periods established by the
Commission “will reassure all home buyers that, in the event that a home component
covered by the warranty does not perform up to standards, it will be repaired or
replaced.”46
There is a warranty of habitability of ten (10) years. This warranty covers a construction defect in a component that is otherwise covered under one of the other warranties, but was not discoverable by a reasonably prudent inspection during the original warranty period, and the defect has made the home unsafe or unfit for humans to inhabit. Any remaining warranty periods are transferred automatically to the new
homeowner when a home is sold.
While the Commission established the minimum requirements for warranties in Texas, the builders are responsible for providing them. The builders are given discretion with regard to the manner in which the warranties are provided. All that is mandated is that the builders provide them. The warranties supercede all other implied warranties for new home construction, improvements, and remodeling. Parties are not allowed to waive the statutory warranties by contract.47 The warranties cannot be waived, modified, or
reduced to limit the protection offered; although builders may provide more protection than is required.
The warranties established by the Commission are exclusive and supercede all implied warranties.48 The only warranties applicable are those created by the
Commission and other statutes which expressly refer to residential construction or residential improvements or any express, written warranty between the homeowner and builder.
The chart in the appendix summarizes the new warranties and performance standards which were adopted by the Commission and became effective June 1, 2005.
d. How the State-Sponsored Inspection and Dispute Resolution Process Works
All residential construction defect claims that fall under the TRCCA (i.e., claims involving single family homes and duplexes) are supposed to be submitted to the Commission before a
claim can proceed to suit. The TRCCA “applies to a dispute between a builder and a homeowner
49 § 426.001(a)(1). 50 § 428.001©). 51 Id. 52
Texas Residential Construction Commission, FAQ -State-Sponsored Inspection and Dispute Resolution Process (SIRP), http://www.trcc.state.tx.us/faq/faq_ssirp.htm (last visited Jan. 10, 2006); see § 426.001(a)(2).
53
10 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 304.2 (2005).
54
TEX. PROP. CODE ANN . § 428.003(a).
55
§ 426.004; see Texas Residential Construction Commission, FAQ - State-Sponsored Inspection and Dispute Resolution Process (SIRP), http://www.trcc.state.tx.us/faq/faq_ssirp.htm (last visited Jan. 10, 2006). 56
Texas Residential Construction Commission, FAQ - State-Sponsored Inspection and Dispute Resolution Process (SIRP), http://www.trcc.state.tx.us/faq/faq_ssirp.htm (last visited Jan. 10, 2006).
injury, survival, or wrongful death, or damage to goods.”49 The dispute resolution process is
referred to as a state sponsored inspection and dispute resolution process (SIRP). Either the builder or the homeowner can submit a claim to the Commission, however, the process starts prior to the submission of a request to the Commission. The process begins by requiring that the complaining party notify the builder in writing, not less than thirty (30) days prior to submitting the dispute resolution request, of every defect that the homeowner is aware of.50 Next the
homeowner must provide the builder with an opportunity to inspect the alleged defects on his
own or have the builder’s designated consultants inspect the home.51
The applicable limitations period for a homeowner or builder to submit a request for SIRP
on construction projects is (1) “[o]n or before the tenth anniversary of the initial transfer of title
from the builder to the owner of the home or the improvement. If there is no transfer of title, the request should be submitted by the tenth anniversary of the date on which the contract for
construction of an improvement was entered into”; or (2) “[o]n or before the second anniversary
of the date the claimed construction defect was discovered but not later than the 30th day after the
date the applicable warranty period expires.”52 The statute of limitations under this statute is
effectively two (2) years from the date of discovery, but not later than thirty (30) days after the expiration of the applicable warranty period.53 Claims under the TRCCA are subject to the ten
(10) year statute of repose.
Once a request has been made by either the homeowner or the builder, the Commission will determine whether the request is eligible under the TRCCA and, if so, the Commission will designate a third-party inspector to inspect the alleged defect(s) outlined in the request.54 The party submitting the request to the Commission must also pay the expenses of a third-party inspector ($250, which may be waived in cases of financial need).55 If the third-party inspector’s
findings support all or a portion of the alleged defects, the Commission will reimburse the
inspection fee to the homeowner, and the builder/remodeler will be responsible for the fee.56If the
