Relating to damages in an action arising out of a deficiency in the construction or repair of an improvement to real property.
The bill's provisions will significantly change how damages are assessed in construction defect claims, emphasizing the cost-to-cure approach while promoting accountability among builders and contractors. By setting a clear framework for determining damages, SB561 intends to clarify expectations for both property owners and contractors, potentially leading to fewer disputes and litigation over construction deficiencies. These changes will only apply to contracts entered into after the bill's effective date, thus not retroactively affecting existing agreements.
SB561 proposes an amendment to Chapter 41 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code regarding damages in actions arising out of deficiencies in construction or repairs made to real property. Specifically, the bill defines 'construction defect' and allows claims against individuals who constructed or repaired real property improvements. Notably, the legislation establishes a formula for calculating damages, reducing the awarded amount by 10% for each anniversary of substantial completion prior to filing a claim. This aims to provide a systematic approach in adjudicating construction-related claims.
Generally, the sentiment surrounding SB561 appears to be supportive among advocates for the construction industry, as it may foster a more predictable legal environment for contractors. However, there might be concerns from property owners regarding the fairness of the damage reduction clause and its impact on their ability to recover full compensation for inadequately performed work. The discussion on this topic emphasizes a balance between limiting excessive liability for builders and ensuring that property owners have sufficient remedies for construction defects.
One of the primary points of contention revolves around the formula for reducing damages based on the elapsed time since construction was completed. Critics may argue that this could unfairly disadvantage property owners who may face increasing repair costs as time passes. The law's effective date implies that older constructs will not benefit from these provisions, sparking discussions on fairness and protection for individuals with longstanding construction issues.