Defect liability
The Right to Repair Act gives a builder something no common-law defendant gets: a statutory right to inspect the alleged defect and offer to fix it before litigation starts. Civil Code sections 910 through 938 set that procedure out. It is a real advantage, and it is fragile — the statute releases the claimant from the whole process if the builder misses the acknowledgment deadline, misses the inspection deadline, or fails to make a timely offer. This guide, reviewed by Jayson R. Elliott, covers what the process gives a builder and every provision that takes it away.
Civil Code section 914 describes the chapter as establishing a nonadversarial procedure. That framing matters. It is not a preliminary phase of litigation; it is a structured private process that runs before litigation and that can end the dispute without it.
For a claimant it is a precondition — the prelitigation procedures must be initiated before filing an action alleging violation of the Act’s standards. For a builder it is an opportunity, because the alternative to a repair completed under this chapter is a defect lawsuit with experts on both sides.
The process begins when the claimant serves written notice of the claim. Section 910(a) requires the claimant to describe the claim in reasonable detail sufficient to determine the nature and location, to the extent known, of the claimed violation.
That standard is worth reading closely on receipt. “Reasonable detail sufficient to determine the nature and location” is a real requirement, and a notice that does not meet it is a different document from one that does. It is also the moment the clock starts — everything downstream measures from receipt.
Section 912 separately imposes a set of obligations on the builder, including document production duties, that operate alongside the response deadlines rather than instead of them.
This is the part of the chapter a builder needs to internalise, because the statute uses the same remedy three times: if the builder misses a step, the claimant is released and may sue.
Section 913 requires the builder or the builder’s representative to acknowledge receipt of the notice of claim, in writing, within 14 days after receipt. Section 915 provides that failure to acknowledge receipt releases the claimant from the prelitigation requirements.
Fourteen days is short, and the consequence is disproportionate to the effort. Written acknowledgment is the cheapest step in the entire chapter and the most expensive one to miss.
Section 913 also carries a provision that matters procedurally: where the notice is served by the claimant’s legal representative, or where the builder receives a written representation letter from a homeowner’s attorney, the builder must include that attorney in all subsequent substantive communications. Continuing to deal directly with the homeowner after counsel has appeared is not an option the statute leaves open.
The inspection right has its own deadline, and section 916(d) provides that failure to inspect within the time limits results in release from these provisions. The right to look at the alleged defect is conditional on exercising it promptly.
Section 920 is the broadest of the three. If the builder fails to make an offer to repair, or otherwise fails to strictly comply with the chapter within the times specified, the claimant is released from the requirements of the chapter and may proceed with filing an action.
Note the phrase “or otherwise strictly comply.” Section 920 is not limited to the offer; it reaches compliance with the chapter generally. Substantial compliance is not the standard the section names.
Three ways to lose the right to repair §915 — failing to acknowledge the claim notice in writing within 14 days (§913). §916(d) — failing to inspect within the statutory time limits. §920 — failing to make an offer to repair, or otherwise failing to strictly comply with the chapter within the times specified. Each releases the claimant from the prelitigation process and permits an immediate action.
Section 916 governs the builder’s election to inspect. The initial inspection and testing must be completed within 14 days after the acknowledgment of receipt of the claim notice, at a mutually convenient date and time.
The second inspection has a tighter trigger than most builders expect. Under section 916(c), the builder may request additional inspection within 3 days of the initial inspection, specifying the reasons, and the second inspection must be completed within 40 days of the first. Three days is a short window in which to decide that a further look is needed, which argues for having the right people at the initial inspection rather than sending someone to have a first look.
Section 916(e) addresses notice to others. The builder gives notice to subcontractors, design professionals, suppliers, and insurers, and provides notice of those invitees to the claimant.
This is the provision to think about strategically rather than mechanically. The prelitigation process is the first structured moment at which the parties who may actually bear responsibility — the subcontractor whose work is at issue, the design professional whose detail is at issue, the insurer who may owe a defense — can be brought into the inspection. Doing that late, after positions have hardened, is materially harder than doing it under section 916(e).
Section 917 provides that within 30 days of the initial inspection, or of the second inspection if one was requested, the builder may offer in writing to repair the violation. The offer must compensate the homeowner for all applicable damages recoverable under the Act within the timeframe for the repair set out in the chapter.
Two features are worth noting. The offer is permissive — the statute says the builder “may” offer — but section 920 makes failing to offer a release event, so declining to offer is a decision to send the matter to litigation rather than a neutral act. And the offer is not repair alone: it must address applicable recoverable damages as well.
Section 918 then gives the homeowner 30 days to authorise the repair as proposed or to request that the repair be performed by a different contractor.
Section 921 governs performance. Where resolution is by repair, the builder arranges with the claimant to make the repair and compensates the homeowner for all damages resulting from it, free of charge to the claimant. Repairs are to be commenced within short windows measured from acceptance, from the homeowner’s selection of an alternative contractor, from mediation, or from obtaining a required permit — the specific day counts are set out on the timeline guide.
Completion matters as much as commencement. If the contractor performing the repair does not complete it in the time or manner specified, the claimant may file an action — and where that happens, the Act’s standards continue to apply to that action.
The chapter contemplates mediation with its own timing: the mediator must have sufficient availability that the mediation occurs within 15 days after the request to mediate is received, at a mutually convenient location within the county where the action is pending. Where a builder has made an offer to repair and mediation has failed to resolve the dispute, the homeowner is to allow the repair to be performed — by the builder, its contractor, or the selected contractor.
A builder who works the process gets to inspect the condition, involve the subcontractors and insurers who may carry the exposure, control the scope and cost of the repair, and potentially end the matter before an expert is retained on either side.
A builder who lets a deadline pass gets none of that, and gets a lawsuit in which the Act’s standards still apply. The asymmetry is the argument for treating an SB 800 notice as a calendared matter from the day it arrives.
Before you ask
Civil Code section 913 requires the builder or the builder’s representative to acknowledge receipt of the notice of claim in writing within 14 days after receipt. Section 915 provides that failure to acknowledge releases the claimant from the prelitigation requirements, so the shortest deadline in the chapter carries one of its most serious consequences.
The claimant is released and may sue. Civil Code section 915 releases the claimant for failure to acknowledge the notice, section 916(d) for failure to inspect within the time limits, and section 920 where the builder fails to make an offer to repair or otherwise fails to strictly comply with the chapter within the times specified.
Civil Code section 916 requires the initial inspection and testing to be completed within 14 days after the acknowledgment of receipt of the claim notice, at a mutually convenient date and time. Under section 916(c) the builder may request a second inspection within 3 days of the initial inspection, and that second inspection must be completed within 40 days of the first.
Civil Code section 917 is permissive — within 30 days of the initial or second inspection the builder “may” offer in writing to repair. But section 920 treats failure to make an offer as a release event, so declining to offer is effectively a decision to send the matter to litigation rather than a neutral choice. Any offer must also compensate the homeowner for applicable recoverable damages.
Yes, and it is often the most valuable strategic step available. Civil Code section 916(e) addresses the builder giving notice to subcontractors, design professionals, suppliers, and insurers, and providing notice of those invitees to the claimant — which brings the parties who may bear responsibility into the inspection before positions harden.
No. Civil Code section 913 provides that where the notice of claim is served by the claimant’s legal representative, or where the builder receives a written representation letter from a homeowner’s attorney, the builder must include that attorney in all subsequent substantive communications.
Keep reading
Breadcrumb + pillar parent
“the specific day counts are set out on the timeline guide”
What follows if the process fails
Whether the Act applies to you
Builder status via spec building
Why the rule does not help inside the Act
Inline first mention: claimant, builder, notice of claim, nonadversarial procedure, tender, invitee
Attorneys section — end of article
Assigned attorney profile (NOT YET BUILT)
If this describes your situation, an attorney affiliated with Bay Legal PC, CA Bar No. 332479, can review it with you.