Right To Repair Act Does Not Eliminate Homeowner’s Common Law Rights.

A homeowner purchased a newly constructed home from defendant. A pipe burst, resulting in significant damage. The homeowner’s insurer, plaintiff, paid the expenses and repair costs and then brought an action in subrogation for recovery. The trial court found the subrogation action was time barred under the Right to Repair Act [Civil Code section 895], and sustained defendant’s demurrer. In reversing, the appellate court stated: “The Right to Repair Act was enacted to provide remedies where construction defects have negatively affected the economic value of a home, although no actual property damage or personal injuries have occurred as a result of the defects. We hold the Act does not eliminate a property owner’s common law rights and remedies, otherwise recognized by law, where, as here, actual damage has occurred. Accordingly, [plaintiff;s] complaint in subrogation, based on [the homeowner’s] right to recover actual damages, states causes of action.”  Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove  (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3; August 28, 2013) (Case No. G046731).