Ar_home_b_search
 

I was reading a blog on the PI's Seattle Real Estate Professional's Blog regarding new legislation, Senate Bill 5550, that would improve upon the implied one year new construction warranty provided by Washington's builders. In the article titled Justice IS Available for SOME New Construction Homebuyers, Jillayne Schlicke highlights some of the major Washington builders warranty programs and none of them are too exciting.

But the theme that shows up for me is the lack of accountability that builders have to the current owners. Marlow Harris makes this comment "They have no liability nor, it appears, any personal responsibility for their product. Half the time, it's like pulling teeth just to find out who the true owner is. On the paperwork, it's "Whitman Street LLC" or "Kirkland Glenn LLC" or some such entity."

Builders are creating LLCs for each plat with the hopes of limiting their risk, which can't be blamed since smart business is to limit risk while increasing profitably but a balance must be met. A builder we work does the same thing but I don't know their reasoning; I just thought they were doing it to make the paperwork easier and not trying to reduce risk.

After reading Jillayne's blog and Senate Bill 5550 I thought I would poise this new change to our Broker, Mickie Barnett. Mickie thought this was an excellent measure to be put forth and that it is long over due. This is what Senate Bill 5550 hopes to create and its main focus is on extending the coverage and here is the synopsis:

  • For two years, beginning on the warranty date, the new home is free from any defects in materials and workmanship;
  • For three years, beginning on the warranty date, the new home is free from any defects in the electrical, plumbing, heating, cooling, and ventilating systems, except that in the case of appliances, fixtures, and items of equipment, the warranty need not exceed the length and scope of the warranty offered by the manufacturer, and the warranty of merchantability, fitness, and all other implied warranties with respect to appliances, fixtures, and items of equipment shall be governed by the Washington uniform commercial code;
  • For five years, beginning on the warranty date, the new home is free from any defects that permit or, without repair, will lead to water penetration; and
  • For ten years, beginning on the warranty date, the new home is free from any structural defects.

Senate Bill 5550 isn't perfect though. Mickie and I both agreed that the Five Year warranty would be difficult to enforce for this reason: what "if" a new development goes in behind the current development creating more run off water and collects under the houses? Who's liable now? The builder that did the homes with water underneath or the builder that created the run off? It looks like this is a big grey area.

Though this topic hasn't come up with our builder it would be interesting to have his take on current warranties and the effects the new legislation may have on the building industry. Do other states have similar Senate Bills that extend the home builder warranty beyond one year?

 
This post has been included in Washington Real Estate News
Post is included in group: Washington Developers and Contractors

13 Comments on Builder Warranties: Senate Bill 5550

FEB
07
2007
389,742 Points 16 Featured Posts Outside Blog
That is an important issue. There have been some major lawsuits against builders here in Nevada. Several years ago they tried to sneak through a law that would severly limit their liability, in essence giving them a free pass after a very short time frame.  On the opposite side there are several builders here who have outstanding warranties. -Charles
3:42pm • #1
FEB
20
2007
2 Featured Posts

Toby,

Great post, sure to draw much attention on both sides.  I've dealt with both sides of residential new construction defect litigation, representing homeowners and developers alike, in both single-family and condominium contexts.   I could write a detailed post about the pros and cons on each side - and I think now I will!  Thanks for the great heads-up.

 

-Devon 

2:48pm • #2
146,735 Points 16 Featured Posts Outside Blog

I would love to read the pros & cons post Devon. This topic should have a big impact on the new construction side as well as the re sale side of the real estate market. It will be interesting to see if builders take the intitative if the bill doesn't go through to improve current home builder warranties.

3:51pm • #3
MAR
06
2007

Without posting a lengthy assessment of this legislation, I will say that it seems to have cost ramifications that may have a more negative effect on homebuyers than any potential for defects beyond the current 1 year where there is no solvent defendant.  

 While I feel for the consumer, the bigger market picture favors not enacting this legislation. If we want to encourage growth, or at least keep some builders in business, we will not enact legislation that makes construction a cost prohibitive industry.  The result of 5550 may be higher quality homes, but the end cost to Washington citizens would likely be greatly increased cost of construction (and necessarily home prices) and the walmartization of construction companies. 

2:25pm • #4
146,735 Points 16 Featured Posts Outside Blog

Imants, most of the homes built in our area don't seem to have any major problems within the first 10 years. It usually is pretty safe to say that a 10 year old home will go through the inspection process without any problems. So I would argue that if construction cost rose do to 5550 the impact would be pretty low.

2:57pm • #5

I agree that structural problems within 10 years are not going to cause a lot of havoc. My main concern was the stringent language of the two and three year periods, within which, it would seem that the home owner could expect to call the builder out (or sub) for everything from a leaky faucet to a blown outlet. That would seem to make it hard to budget for as a builder.   

 The thing is, and I admit this, any comments of mine on the economic effects are purely speculative. 

3:55pm • #6
146,735 Points 16 Featured Posts Outside Blog

Great point Imants! I didn't think of how the minor issues in the 2-3 year section could affect the builders. It would be disastrous for the builders if these little items were a fault by the builder and not considered normal repairs.

4:22pm • #7
MAR
07
2007

Yeah, I guess I am comparing it to the current one year warranty, which covers literally everything. Even a loose faucet or whatever is still within reason to call the builder and have him send his sub out to fix. I think that is really fair. Buyers of new homes pay a substantial premium and that is based largely on the expectation that the home will be problem free for at least the first year in all respects, small or large.  To extend that to two or three years would put a strain on builders' patience and account balances.  

Still, for major defects like the foundation or roof or whatever, I can see a longer period being fair, maybe 5 years.  
1:11pm • #8
146,735 Points 16 Featured Posts Outside Blog

That would be tough on the builders but would it make them more accountable for having a quality product? I would expect a new home to be free of small defects for at least 3 years otherwise it would that I got ripped off if the home couldn't even last that long. Also, after re-reading the bill and I couldn't find where the roof was specifically covered but maybe that is in the 10 year structural section.

2:24pm • #9

I feel you. The ripped off feeling definitely ensues upon such discoveries, however small.  Roofs generally come with decent warranties from the company who installed it, so there are less issues there.  

Bottom line is that the construction industry's lobby will not let this bill pass. I could be wrong, but I would think the MBA and other organizations would take significant steps to bar this.

We'll see. I am not up in arms about it, because obviously it may increase litigation rather than decrease it.  On the flip side, since I do a lot of transactional work, if there is a substantial decrease in the amount of projects going up, I could feel that hit. 

 Interesting to ponder.  Thanks again for the great post.

3:26pm • #10
146,735 Points 16 Featured Posts Outside Blog

I agree with the MBA lobbying really hard against this...maybe I'll try and dig up some info on what they are saying as a follow up.

7:25pm • #11
MAR
10
2007
I find this to be very interesting. I will get back with you soon and would like to give you the Washington Association of Realtors stance.  It is late and we are watching many bills and don't want to misquote anything. Good Comments.
2:26am • #12
APR
20
2007
2 Featured Posts

Toby and Imants,

Your conversation is much more interesting than any pro and con analysis I could put together!  I've dealt with construction defect issues in a number of new homes.

One thing that struck me is the definition of "Builder" under the act.  It seems very undefined, as it applies to anyone "engaged in the business of erecting or otherwise constructing a new house."  This seems very potentially problematic.  Do you have to perform physical labor on the site to be considered a Builder?  What about the developer who does nothing to the site other than contract with a general contractor?  What if the problem is the fault of the architect or engineer, and the Builder merely did a superb job of building to specifications?

The definition of "Builder" also includes anyone who "Purchases a complete new home for resale in the course of its business."  What is "complete?"  What if I purchase the home when there are only minor punchlist items left; is that complete?  Also, what is "new?"  If a contractor builds a house and it sits unused for five years and I'm the first purchaser, could I become liable as a Builder under the Act?  What if it is 3 years?  1 year? 6 months? 1 month?  A week?  Note that the definition of "new" includes a "substantial remodel."  Does this mean that the casual turn-and-burn family may be liable? Note that it also includes a residential condominium.

I believe that enacting the bill in the state it is in currently would be the source of MANY problems for the construction industry and new home buyers alike.   

6:20pm • #13

What does the graphic say?

Leave a response…



(optional)
What does the graphic say?
 
Toby_009 Rainmaker_large

Toby Barnett

Marysville, WA

More about me…

Keller Williams - Barnett Associates Real Estate, LLC

Address: 1027 State Ave Suite 102, Marysville, WA, 98270

Office Phone: (360) 653-1884

Cell Phone: (425) 210-0709

Email Me

Welcome to my ActiveRain real estate blog and profile. I am the Business Development Manager for Barnett Associates Real Estate, LLC, a Snohomish County real estate firm located in Marysville, Washington. We are a family owned and operated business that has a team of professional REALTORS® to help guide you through the sometimes stressful real estate transaction.


Listings

Links

Archives

RSS 2.0 Feed for this blog