Opinion ID: 810464
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Exclusivity of the NHWA’s Remedies

Text: The NHWA’s policy objective is to “promote commerce in Louisiana by providing clear, concise, and mandatory warranties for the purchasers and occupants of new homes in Louisiana.” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:3141. Section 9:3150 of the NHWA provides that the Act establishes “the exclusive remedies, warranties, and peremptive periods as between builder and owner relative to home construction and no other provisions of law relative to warranties and redhibitory vices and defects shall apply.” Gines argues that the district court erred in ruling that the NHWA provides the sole remedy under Louisiana law for a purchaser of a new home with construction defects. Gines contends that the ruling below “essentially transformed the NHWA into a caveat emptor statute where the buyer has no 4 Case: 12-30183 Document: 00512023188 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/17/2012 No. 12-30183 recourse for defective construction” that does not result in “actual physical damage.” According to Gines, if the NHWA provides the only remedy for purchasers of new homes with construction defects, then the actual physical damage requirement “essentially eliminates a whole line of case law requiring, as a matter of public policy, [that] builders . . . complete residential housing in a workmanlike manner.” Horton agrees that the general rule implied in construction contracts is that the work will be free of defects and performed in a workmanlike manner, but Horton contends that the general rule is inapplicable in this case. Rather, in Horton’s view, the NHWA provides “the exclusive remedies for claims regarding alleged defects to a new residence.” According to Horton, “the breach of contract and implied warranty claims generally available in other construction contracts are not available under the NHWA.” In accordance with the statute’s plain language, and as Gines concedes, the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that the NHWA provides a homeowner’s exclusive remedy against a builder for defects in new home construction. In Carter v. Duhe, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that “the NHWA provides the exclusive remedy between owners and new home builders.” 921 So. 2d 963, 968 (La. 2006). In Carter, new homeowners argued that they should have been able to assert claims outside of the NHWA because their builder did not give them notice of the Act’s requirements as required by law. Id. at 967. The Carter court held that the NHWA does not provide a penalty for failure of the builder to provide notice to homeowners. Id. at 968. Accordingly, it concluded that the builder did not waive the exclusivity provision of the NHWA, and it reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of all non-NHWA claims. Id. at 969-71. In Marks v. New Orleans Police Department, the Louisiana Supreme Court clarified that the rationale in Carter is not limited to disputes over the NHWA’s notice provisions. 943 So. 2d 1028, 1035 (La. 2006). Although the facts of Marks 5 Case: 12-30183 Document: 00512023188 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/17/2012 No. 12-30183 do not pertain to new home construction defects or the NHWA,2 the Marks court confirmed that the holding in Carter was that “the NHWA provides the exclusive remedies, warranties, and peremptive periods between the builder and owner relative to new home construction.” Id. We further note that the six cases Gines cites to support his argument that he may bring a breach of contract claim against Horton are inapposite. Several of these cases involve construction not covered by the NHWA, such as defective driveways and sidewalks,3 construction related to a waste water treatment plant,4 new roof installation,5 and home repairs.6 One of the cases that Gines cites was decided before the NHWA was enacted,7 and another involved a suit by the builder for costs not reimbursed or paid by the purchaser.8 None of these cases carves out an exception to the Louisiana Supreme Court’s holding that the NHWA provides a homeowner’s exclusive remedy in cases such as this one. Gines therefore cannot bring a claim against Horton for breach of contract. 2 Marks concerned a police officer who was suspended and terminated for misconduct after a sixty-day statutory period for conducting an investigation had lapsed. 943 So.2d at 1030. The reference to Carter arose in the court’s discussion of statutes that contain mandatory language (“X is required to do Y”) but lack corresponding penalty provisions to enforce their mandates. Id. at 1035-37. 3 Boudreaux v. Matherne, No. 2010 CA 1996, 2011 WL 2023468 (La. App. 1st Cir. May 6, 2011) (unpublished). 4 City of Plaquemine v. N. Am. Constructors, Inc., 832 So. 2d 447 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2002). 5 Hai Nam Chinese Rest. P’ship v. B & B Const. of New Iberia, 942 So. 2d 97 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 2006). 6 Troy v. Bretz, 399 So. 2d 667 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1981). 7 Davidge v. H & H Constr. Co., 432 So. 2d 393 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1983). 8 Austin Homes, Inc. v. Thibodeaux, 821 So. 2d 10 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 2002). 6 Case: 12-30183 Document: 00512023188 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/17/2012 No. 12-30183