Homeowner’s Insurance Company Did Not Comply With The Right To Repair Act Before Completing Repairs.

When the owner purchased a home, he signed a document which advised him of the prelitigation procedures required in the Right to Repair Act [Civil Code section 895]. Six years later, when the home was vacant, a property manager discovered a water leak, and the owner notified his insurance company. The insurance company hired workers to repair the damage and then sent the home builder a notice of its intent to pursue its subrogation right to recover payment for the loss; it later sent a demand for $80,984.61. When the builder did not respond, the insurance company filed a complaint in subrogation against the builder. The trial court ruled the prelitigation procedures set forth in the Right to Repair Act did not apply to the insurance company’s claim.  The appellate court issued a writ of mandate, stating: “We conclude that [the builder] is entitled to summary judgment. There was a failure to comply with the notice requirements of the Act, depriving [the builder] of its right to inspect and repair a defect in a home subject to the Act. We shall grant the petition, directing the trial court to vacate its order and issue a new order granting [the builder’s] motion for summary judgment and denying [the insurance company’s] motion for summary judgment.” (KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. V. Sup. Ct. (Allstate Insurance Company) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 4; February 21, 2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1471, [168 Cal.Rptr.3d 142].)