Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-The Supreme Court held that the legislature made the Right to Repair Act the virtually exclusive remedy not just for economic loss but also for property damage arising from construction defects; [2]-Plaintiffs’ suit for property damage was therefore subject to the Act’s prelitigation procedures, and the court of appeal was correct to order a stay until those procedures were followed; [3]-While plaintiffs’ complaint included breach of contract and breach of warranty claims, it also included claims for strict liability and negligent failure to construct defect-free homes, to which no statutory exception applied; [4]-Accordingly, plaintiffs had to comply with the Act’s prelitigation procedures before their suit could proceed; [5]-Because plaintiffs had not yet done so, defendant was entitled to a stay.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. are restaurant attorneys  San Diego

Outcome

Judgment of court of appeal affirmed; case remanded.