Source: https://www.wolfflaw.com/the-california-builders-right-to-repair-act-sb800-and-homebuyers.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:45:44+00:00

Document:
In 2002, after an adverse decision by the California Supreme Court denying homeowners the right to sue for construction defects that had not yet caused actual damage to other property or parts of a home, the California General Assembly adopted the “Right to Repair Act” (Civil Code §§ 895 - 945.5), often referred to as SB 800.
The McCaffrey Group, Inc. v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 1330, 1342-1343.
The purpose of the Right to Act was abolish parts of the “Economic Loss Doctrine,” and to establish rights and procedures which allow a homeowner in a new development to recover for construction defects even where there is no actual property damage to other property yet, and where the only “defect” is the bad work or defective product itself, which bad work might not cause actual property damage to other property until years after the otherwise applicable Statutes of Limitation and Statute of Respose in Code Civil Proc. §* 337.1, 337.15 have expired.
SB 800 effectively reversed this Aas decision and the “economic loss rule” in part and in limited instances for home developments constructed in and after 2003 by a “Builder”, which the Act defines as meaning a regular developer of that home and other homes for sale to the public.
Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc . (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 1194, 1209-1211.
To minimize the costs, risks and time delays of regular construction defect litigation, the Act provides in Civil Code §§ 910-938 for a pre-litigation, non-adversarial, private procedure that is a precondition to litigation regarding alleged violations of the Standards for Residential Construction in Civil Code ྷ 896.
The Builder or Developer must give homebuyers notice of these procedures and rights in their sale and title documents, or the Builder waives the right to enforce these procedures or stay litigation pending the Right to Repair non-adversarial pre-litigation procedures.
However, even if the Builder fails to give homebuyers notice of the Right to Repair Act on the sale of the home, the Statues of Limitations and other limited exceptions to the Economic Loss Rule in SB 800 still apply to buyers.
The SB 800 procedure requires written notice to the Builder in a specific manner of the violation of the specific Standards for Residential Construction defined in Civil Code § 896, inspection procedures, and gives the Builder the right to offer to repair violations of the Standards, before the property owners may commence any suit for those same violations of the Standards.
The McCaffrey Group, Inc. v. Superior Court , supra, 224 Cal. App. 4th 1330, 1343-1344.
The Builder may establish alternate, but equivalent, pre-litigation procedures to those in SB 800.
The McCaffrey Group, Inc. v. Superior Court ,supra, 224 Cal. App. 4th 1330, 1344.
“(a) This chapter establishes a nonadversarial procedure, including the remedies available under this chapter which, if the procedure does not resolve the dispute between the parties, may result in a subsequent action to enforce the other chapters of this title. A builder may attempt to commence nonadversarial contractual provisions other than the nonadversarial procedures and remedies set forth in this chapter, but may not, in addition to its own nonadversarial contractual provisions, require adherence to the nonadversarial procedures and remedies set forth in this chapter, regardless of whether the builder's own alternative nonadversarial contractual provisions are successful in resolving the dispute or ultimately deemed enforceable.
At the time the sales agreement is executed, the builder shall notify the homeowner whether the builder intends to engage in the nonadversarial procedure of this section or attempt to enforce alternative nonadversarial contractual provisions. If the builder elects to use alternative nonadversarial contractual provisions in lieu of this chapter, the election is binding, regardless of whether the builder's alternative nonadversarial contractual provisions are successful in resolving the ultimate dispute or are ultimately deemed enforceable.
Anders v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 579, 588.
The McCaffrey Group, Inc. v. Superior Court , supra, 224 Cal. App. 4th 1330, 1342, 1343.
If the property owner does not comply with the mandatory, Non-adversarial, Pre-Litigation procedures in the statute, Civil Code §§ 910-938, the Builder may move to stay or dismiss any lawsuit the homeowners may have already filed.
A homeowner/buyer who files suit has the burden of proof on such a motion to prove that he or she has complied with the non-adversarial prelitigation procedures in Civil Code §§ 910-938, or show it is subject to some exception thereto. Standard Pacific Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 828, 834; Darling v. Superior Court (1st Dist. 2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 69, 75; The McCaffrey Group, Inc. v. Superior Court ,supra, 224 Cal. App. 4th 1330, 1351.
The Right to Repair Act does have its own more specific Statutes of Limitations periods that apply where the alleged “defects” or violations of the Standards have not yet caused property damage to other property. See e.g., Civil Code §§ 900 (“fit and finish” of flooring, paint, trim, countertops, exterior walls etc, 1 year from Close of Escrow on the home); 896(e) (plumbing and sewers, 4 years), 896(f) (electrical systems, 4 years), (g)(1) (driveways, patios, sidewalks, 4 years), (2) (stucco, siding 4 years), (6) (violations of noise standards, 1 year), (7) (irrigation and drainage, 1 year), (8) (wood posts, 2 years), (9) (steel fences, 4 years), (10) (exterior paints and stains, 5 years), (12) (landscaping, 2 years), (14) (dryer ducts, 2 years from close of escrow). (Note, these statutory provisions and other SB 800 provisions elsewhere here have been greatly simplified for purposes of this Article, so please read the original statutory provisions for a complete and accurate description and understanding of the Act).
However, these SB 800 Statutes of Limitations - or outside limits or time periods within which a lawsuit must be filed - are stayed, suspended or “tolled” while the pre-litigation procedures under SB800 are being pursued in good faith. Civil Code § 941.
Once the non-adversarial pre-litigation procedure has commenced per Civil Code§ 910 et seq, the homeowner may only be released from this process so as to be able to file (or continue) suit in two limited circumstances.
First, the homeowner may only proceed with litigation after the start of the pre-litigation procedure “if the builder fails to make an offer to repair”, or “if the contractor performing the repair does not complete the repair in the time or manner specified”. Civil Code § 920.
And, if the Builder’s repairs do not correct the violations of the Standards of Residential Construction, the homeowners may still sue to recover for those violations of the Standards.
However, the other Provisions of SB 800 still apply to limit the time to file and the scope of any such lawsuit.
It is important for homeowners in a post-2002 residential development to understand that, even before or while the non-adversarial Right to Repair Act pre-litigation procedures are ongoing and still have not been completed or run their course as required by SB 800, homeowners can still sue the Builder and others responsible for construction defects, including Violations of the Standards for Residential Construction in Civil Code § 896 where those violations or other defects have caused actual damage to other parts of the home or other property.
Finally, even if the homeowner did not timely institute a claim or lawsuit for violations of the Standards for Residential Construction within the Statutes of Limitations in the Act periods discussed above, in Civil Code §§ 896, 900 et al, once those violations or conditions cause actual damages to other property or other parts of the home, a suit could still be brought against the Builder and others for negligence, strict liability and other claims for actual damages.
One example of such an defect for which suit maybe allowed without following the SB800 pre-litigation procedures might be a leak in the building shell which has caused water damage, or mold or rot to occur in some other part of the building, such as damage to plywood sheathing, drywall, interior finishes, furnishings, etc.
And, of course, claims for breach of contract, fraud, and non-disclosure etc also would not usually be subject to the mandatory Pre-litigation procedures, in or specific Statutes of Limitation of, the Right-to-Repair Act.
But those other claims or “causes of action” for damages would be subject to other statutes of limitation than those in SB 800, the Right to Repair Act.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 896
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 941
 § 920
 § 896