Real estate exposure
SB 800 doesn’t apply to every contractor who touches a home. It governs builders of new residential construction specifically. Whether that’s you depends on who owned the project, whether you sold what you built, and whether an owner-builder exemption you once relied on still holds up.
The Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§895–945.5, commonly called SB 800) sets out a specific, mandatory framework for construction-defect claims. In McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 241, the California Supreme Court held that SB 800 is the virtually exclusive remedy — covering both economic loss and property damage — for construction-defect claims against builders of new residential construction. That’s a significant framework for a builder to operate inside, including its mandatory prelitigation notice-and-repair process. But it only applies if you’re the kind of party SB 800 is written for.
A contractor hired by a homeowner to remodel a kitchen is not automatically a “builder” under this framework, even if the same contractor’s other work elsewhere might qualify them as one. The distinction turns on the nature of the specific project, not a permanent label attached to the business.
SB 800’s framework is built around the entity that develops and sells new residential construction — typically:
If you were hired by a property owner — someone else who owns the land and the project — to perform construction or remodeling work, you are typically a hired contractor, not a builder under SB 800, even on a large job. The owner is the one selling the property later; your relationship is with them under your construction contract, not with the eventual buyer under SB 800.
This matters because a hired contractor’s exposure runs through a different set of doctrines entirely — the non-privity duty framework covered in “Your Liability If Work You Performed Is Discovered After a Sale,” not SB 800’s builder-specific process.
“Builder” under SB 800
Hired Contractor
Who owns the project
Contractor owns/develops the property, builds, then sells
Property owner hires the contractor to build or remodel
Governing framework
SB 800 / Right to Repair Act (Civ. Code §§895–945.5)
General contract law, common-law duty analysis (Biakanja/Beacon), Civ. Code §§1572/1710
Owner-builder exemption relevance
BPC §7044 exemption may be lost if selling triggers the “for sale” presumption
Not applicable — contractor was never claiming an owner-builder exemption
Prelitigation process
SB 800’s mandatory notice-and-repair process typically applies
No SB 800 prelitigation process — ordinary pre-suit demand/negotiation instead
Typical dispute posture
Buyer of new residential construction vs. the entity that built and sold it
Later buyer (non-privity) vs. a contractor who worked for a prior owner
This distinction connects directly to BPC §7044’s owner-builder exemption, covered in Pillar 1. That exemption allows an unlicensed property owner to build without a contractor’s license under specific conditions — no more than 4 single-family homes sold per year, direct contracts with licensed subs for each trade. But selling a property within 1 year of completion creates a presumption the work was “for sale,” which strips the exemption and can push the seller into builder territory under SB 800, whether or not they ever intended to be treated as one. A licensed contractor who takes on a spec-building role — owning the project and building to sell — can cross this same line. See “Spec-Building as a Contractor: When You Become a ‘Builder’” for that specific scenario.
Before you ask
No. McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 241 establishes SB 800 as the near-exclusive remedy for construction-defect claims specifically against builders of new residential construction — not every contractor who performs work on residential property.
Likely yes. If you owned the project and built it with the intent to sell, you’re generally operating as a builder for that project, regardless of your license classification on other jobs. See “Spec-Building as a Contractor” for how this intersects with the BPC §7044 owner-builder exemption.
Generally no. A contractor hired by a property owner to perform work on the owner’s project is typically a hired contractor, not a builder under SB 800. Exposure in that scenario runs through the non-privity duty framework instead — see “Your Liability If Work You Performed Is Discovered After a Sale.”
Talk to an Attorney Today if you’re not sure which framework applies to your project — or Request a Consultation to sort out builder vs. hired-contractor exposure before it becomes a dispute.