Tag Archives: SB 800

SB-1470 (Glazer) Construction defect cases.

Would limit construction defect actions to deficiencies that materially affect the habitability or usefulness of the residential dwelling and are a result of a failure to meet the standard of care.

Current Status: Dead

FindHOALaw Quick Summary:

Existing law sets forth standards for determining liability in an action seeking the recovery of damages arising out of, or related to, deficiencies in residential construction, design, and related issues, and specifies the characteristics of those deficiencies.

This bill would amend Civil Code Section 896 to require a deficiency in the specific standards described above to materially affect the habitability or usefulness of the residential dwelling unit and to be a result of a failure to meet the standard of care in order for the builder to be liable. The bill would amend Civil Code Section 895 to define “standard of care” as the level of care standard in an industry for similar work performed in the state.

Existing law provides for prelitigation procedures for construction defect claims, pursuant to which a claimant and a builder engage in a nonadversarial procedure to resolve deficiencies in construction prior to an adversarial enforcement action. That procedure includes, among other things, an inspection and repair of the alleged defective construction by the builder. Existing law prohibits a builder from obtaining a release or waiver in exchange for such repair work. Existing law authorizes evidence of a repair effort to be admitted as evidence in the event of an enforcement action, and provides that if the claimant contends that repair work was inadequate that the claimant need not shown that the repair work resulted in further damage.

This bill would amend Civil Code Sections 916 to provide for the participation of a special inspector, as defined, in the inspection and approval of repair work performed pursuant to these procedures, and require the builder to obtain and pay for a building permit to perform such work. The bill would instead authorize a builder to obtain a release or waiver upon completion of repair work. This bill would amend Civil Code Section 921 to require a local permitting authority to issue a building permit for these purposes within 30 days of receipt of an application for a permit, thereby creating a state-mandated local program. The bill would amend Civil Code Section 934 to provide that a claimant’s rejection of an offer to repair is not inadmissible in an enforcement action. The bill would amend Civil Code Section 933 to delete the evidentiary provisions described above and instead authorize the introduction of a building permit and reports from a special inspector as evidence in an enforcement action.

Existing law provides for various affirmative defenses for a builder, general contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, individual product manufacturer, or design professional who is defending an enforcement action for construction deficiencies described above.

This will would amend Civil Code Section 945.5 to add a builder’s compliance with a building permit and approval of repairs from the permitting body, and the builder’s receipt of approval from a special inspector to these affirmative defenses.

View more info on SB 1470
from the California Legislature's website

Related Links

Turning up the Heat on Residential Design Professionals - Published on HOA Lawyer Blog (February 4, 2013) Clarifying Attorney-Client Privilege in HOA Construction Defect Litigation - Published on HOA Lawyer Blog (April 23, 2014)

AB-919 (Grayson) Construction defects: actions: statute of limitations.

Would shorten the statute of limitations to file a claim for construction defects from 10 years to 5 years.

Current Status: Pending

FindHOALaw Quick Summary:

Existing law specifies the requirements for actions for construction defects, which includes a statute of limitations that prohibits an action from being brought to recover under these provisions more than 10 years after substantial completion of the improvement, but no later than the date the notice of completion is recorded.
This bill would amend Civil Code Section 941 to shorten the timeframe in which an action may be brought, for underlying construction projects using a skilled and trained workforce, to no more than 5 years after substantial completion of the improvement but no later than the date the notice of completion is recorded.

*SB-919 was amended on April 13, 2021 to define “certified skilled labor” and a “non-profit housing corporation”:

(B) A skilled and trained workforce is certified for purposes of subparagraph (A) if all of the following apply:
(i) If either of the following conditions were satisfied:
(I) All contractors and subcontractors performing work on the underlying construction project were subject to a project labor agreement that required compliance with the skilled and trained workforce requirement and provided for enforcement of that obligation through an arbitration procedure.
(II) The developer provided, on a monthly basis while the underlying construction project or contract for the underlying construction project was being performed, a report demonstrating compliance with Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code to the public entity, or other body awarding work on the project, that ensured the developer’s compliance with the skilled and trained workforce requirements.
(ii) The developer for the underlying construction project required in all contracts for the performance of work on the underlying construction project that every contractor and subcontractor at every tier will individually use a skilled and trained workforce to construct the underlying construction project.
(iii) Every contractor and subcontractor on the underlying construction project actually used a skilled and trained workforce to construct the underlying construction project.
(C) This paragraph shall only apply to actions that meet both of the following conditions:
(i) The action is not for the recovery of damages related to major structural or systemic defects.
(ii) The action is against a nonprofit housing corporation.
(D) For purposes of this paragraph, the following definitions apply:
(i) “Nonprofit housing corporation” means a nonprofit housing corporation organized pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

View more info on AB 919
from the California Legislature's website

Related Links

Turning up the Heat on Residential Design Professionals - Published on HOA Lawyer Blog (February 4, 2013) Clarifying Attorney-Client Privilege in HOA Construction Defect Litigation - Published on HOA Lawyer Blog (April 23, 2014)

AB 2353 (Frazier) Construction defects: actions: statute of limitations.

Would shorten the statute of limitations to file a claim for construction defects from 10 years to 5 years.

Current Status: Dead

FindHOALaw Quick Summary:

Existing law specifies the requirements for actions for construction defects, which includes a statute of limitations that prohibits an action from being brought to recover under these provisions more than 10 years after substantial completion of the improvement, but no later than the date the notice of completion is recorded.
This bill would amend Civil Code Section 941 to shorten the 10-year period to 5 years.
**UPDATE: On May 10, 2018, the proposed text of AB 2353 was gutted and amended to require that a when builder elects to inspect a claim of unmet building standards, such inspection must be conducted by a person who is a licensed contractor with a license that applies to the field and scope in which the person is conducting the inspection.
 916.5 (a)  An inspection conducted pursuant to this chapter shall be conducted by a person licensed pursuant to the Contractor’s State License Law (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) with a license that applies to the field and scope in which the person is conducting the inspection and issuing inspection findings or a report.
(b) Nothing in this section shall preclude a subject matter expert in the field and scope of the inspection who is not licensed pursuant to the Contractor’s State License Law from conducting the inspection and issuing inspection findings or a report when the subject matter of the inspection requires it.

To read the current text of AB 2353, click here to the view the bill’s page on the California Legislature’s website. FindHOALaw will continue to track AB 2353 as it progresses through the Legislature. 

View more info on AB 2353
from the California Legislature's website

Related Links

Turning up the Heat on Residential Design Professionals - Published on HOA Lawyer Blog (February 4, 2013) Clarifying Attorney-Client Privilege in HOA Construction Defect Litigation - Published on HOA Lawyer Blog (April 23, 2014)

Notice to Members of Civil Action Against Developer

The California Civil Code specifies various pre-litigation requirements that an association must satisfy before it may file a civil action (i.e., a lawsuit) against the association’s declarant (its developer) for construction defects. (See “Calderon Process.”) In addition to those requirements, Civil Code Section 6150 requires an association to provide its members with written notice that a construction defect action is being contemplated against the developer for alleged damage to: (1) the common areas; (2) the separate interests that the association is required to maintain or repair; or (3) the separate interests that arise out of, or are integrally related to, damage to the common areas or separate interests that the association is required to maintain or repair. (Civ. Code § 6150(a).)

Timing of Member Notice
The notice must generally be provided at least thirty (30) days prior to the filing of any construction defect action by the association against the developer. (Civ. Code § 6150(a).)

Statute of Limitations Issues – If an association believes that the applicable statute of limitations will expire before the association files the construction defect action, the notice may be given within thirty (30) days after filing the action. (Civ. Code § 6150(b).)

Contents of Member Notice
The notice must specify: (1) that a meeting will take place to discuss problems that may lead to the filing of a construction defect action (i.e., a civil action); (2) the options, including the civil action, that are available to remedy the problem; and (3) the time/place of the meeting to discuss the matters referenced above. (Civ. Code § 6150(a).)

 

Calderon Process

In 1995 the California Legislature enacted the Calderon Act. It establishes various pre-litigation and dispute resolution procedures that an association must satisfy before it can sue its developer (aka, its “declarant”) for construction defects. These procedures are collectively referred to in this article as the “Calderon Process.” The Calderon Process is separate and distinct from the Builder’s Right to Repair Law (commonly known as “SB 800”); SB 800 is another statutory scheme that affects construction defects and the resolution of claims an association may have against its developer. (See “Builder’s Right to Repair Law (SB 800).”)

The following is intended to summarize and outline some of the more notable pre-litigation procedures and requirements under the Calderon Process which are codified under Civil Code Section 6000.

Notice to Members of Contemplated Civil Action Against Developer (Civ. Code § 6150)
In addition to the Calderon Process and the notice requirements discussed below, Civil Code Section 6150 requires an association to, at least thirty (30) days prior to the filing of any construction defect action (i.e., a lawsuit) against the association’s developer, provide its members with written notice that the action is being contemplated. (See “Notice to Members of Civil Action Against Developer.”)

Notice to the Developer
An association with twenty (20) or more units (or lots) must give a pre-litigation notice (a “Notice of Commencement of Legal Proceedings” or “NCLP”) to the builder, developer or general contractor. (Civ.Code §§ 6000(b), 6000(p)(3).) The NCLP is designed to initiate a process for the association and developer to engage in compulsory mediation before litigation can be filed.

Contents of NCLP – The NCLP must include: (1) the name and location of the project; (2) an initial list of defects, sufficiently detailed to put the builder, and/or subcontractor, on notice of the nature of the alleged defects; (3) a description of the results of the defects; (4) a summary of the results of any survey or questionnaire conducted or distributed to unit or lot owners and intended to ascertain the nature and extent of the defects; and (5) if a test of the defective conditions was conducted, a summary of the test results or the actual test results. (Civ. Code § 6000(b)(1)-(5).)

Statute of Limitations Issues – Service of the NCLP acts to toll statute of limitations for one hundred and eighty (180) days, which may be extended by written agreement of the parties. (Civ. Code § 6000(b)-(c).)

Obligations of Developer and Association After Service of NCLP

Developer May Request to Meet & Confer – After service of the NCLP, the developer has twenty-five (25) days to submit a written request to meet and confer with the association’s board of directors. The meeting must take place within ten (10) days after the developer’s request, at a mutually agreeable time and place. (Civ. Code § 6000(d).) This meeting (and any other meeting), may be conducted during executive session and anything said during the meeting is privileged and may not be admitted as evidence in a construction defect action unless the privilege is expressly waived, in writing. (Civ. Code § 6000(d).)

Developer Must Provide Access to Plans & Construction Documents – In addition to the forgoing, and within sixty (60) days of service of the NCLP, the developer must provide, upon request of the association, access to inspect and copy all plans, specifications, subcontracts, and other construction documents reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding the alleged defects. If any document is withheld because of an alleged “privilege,” the developer must note such “privilege” in a “privilege log” prepared and submitted to all parties. (Civ. Code § 6000(e)(1).)

Association Must Provide Access to Certain Association Records – Similar to the developer’s obligation to provide access to its documents, plans, etc., the association must provide the developer, and any subcontractor, with access to all association files reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding the alleged defects. This includes, but is not limited to, reserve studies, survey questionnaires (if any), test results (if any), and maintenance records. (Civ. Code § 6000(e)(1).) The association is afforded the same option of claiming privilege, and must follow the procedures outlined in the preceding paragraph.

Developer Must Notify Other Responsible Parties – Within sixty (60) days of service of the NCLP, the developer must provide notice to all subcontractors and design professionals, including their insurers, of the potential defect action. This notice is limited to those “whose potential responsibility appears on the face of the notice.” (Civ. Code § 6000(e)(2).) This notice must include, among other items of information not mentioned in this artice, all of the following: (1) a copy of the NCLP; (2) the date/time which the parties must meet and confer to select a dispute resolution facilitator (which is to occur within twenty (20) days after developer’s notice to all other responsible parties); and (3) and advisement to the recipient of his/her/its obligation to participate in the meet and confer process. (Civ. Code § 6000(e)(2).) The recipient of such this notice must acknowledge receipt prior to the date established for the meet-and-confer meeting. (Civ. Code § 6000(e)(2).) Insurance information must be given by the recipient within ten (10) days after acknowledging receipt of builder’s notice. (Civ. Code § 6000(e)(2).)

Selection of a Dispute Resolution Facilitator
In connection with the procedures outlined above, the parties must select a “dispute resolution facilitator” (“Facilitator”). The Facilitator is typically an attorney or retired judge retained by the parties to preside over the mandatory mediation. The primary purpose of the Facilitator is to promote the fair resolution of the dispute. To that end, the Facilitator must be knowledgeable in construction defect claims, and must have sufficient time to devote to the case as he or she is likely to spend a considerable amount of time with the parties.  (Civ. Code § 6000(f)(1).)

Case Management Meeting with Facilitator
Within one hundred (100) days of service of the NCLP, the Facilitator must convene a case management meeting. (Civ. Code § 6000(f)(1).) The purpose of the case management meeting is to create a case management statement, which establishes various obligations and rights of the parties with respect to, for example, non-intrusive and invasive testing. (Civ. Code § 6000(h)(1)-(8).)  With the help of the parties, the Facilitator will establish completion deadlines for each of the elements contained in the case management statement. These deadlines may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties, which will usually require the parties to extend the one hundred and eighty (180) day dispute resolution time limit imposed by Civil Code Section 6000(c). (Civ. Code § 6000(j).)

Developer Settlement Offer & Notice to Members
At any time during the dispute resolution process, and as determined by the Facilitator, the developer may request a meeting with the association’s board of directors to discuss a written settlement offer. (Civ. Code § 6000(k)(1)(A).) The meeting must occur within ten (10) days after the develper submits a request to the association. (Civ. Code § 6000(k)(1)(C).)  The written settlement offer must contain: (1) an explanation of the reasons for the terms of the offer; (2) a statement affirming that the builder has sufficient funds to satisfy the offer; and (3) a summary of test results (if any testing has been conducted). (Civ. Code § 6000(k)(1)(A)(ii)-(iv).)

Rejection of Settlement Offer – If the board decides to rejects the settlement offer, it must hold a meeting open to the membership of the association at least fifteen (15) days prior to filing a construction defect action against the developer. (Civ. Code § 6000(k)(1)(D).)  Additionally, and at least fifteen (15) days prior to the meeting, the association must provide owners with notice of the meeting, and said notice must contain the following: (1) a statement that the meeting is being conducted for the purpose of discussing defect problems that may result in the filing of an action against the developer; (2) the options available to the association to address the problems (and how the association anticipates financing those options); (3) a complete copy of the written settlement offer; and (4) a concise statement explaining the specific reasons for the terms of the offer. (Civ. Code § 6000(k)(1)(E).)

Acceptance of Settlement Offer – If the association decides to accept the settlement offer, the board must notify the membership of the settlement. This notice must include: (1) a statement that a settlement has been reached; (2) a description of the defects to be corrected under the agreement; (3) a good faith time estimate as to when the defects will be corrected; and (4) the status of other defect claims not covered by the settlement agreement (if any). (Civ.Code § 6100.) This notice may be amended, as required (Civ.Code § 6100(b)), and such amendment does not waive any privilege attached to the information (Civ.Code § 6100(c)).