Plumbing leaks, builder wants rights signed away

[runner26]

Background: New home completed and purchased from a local builder in CA in March 1999. Plumbing is copper pipe is in the ground under a concrete foundation.

Problem: Copper Pipe leak occurred under garage floor in main incoming cold water line on March 30, 2007. Builder/plumbing companies patched pipe by cutting out segment, soldering in new segment and re-concreting ¼ section of garage floor. Plumber said at the time that the 1/16 inch pinhole may have been caused by a stone on the pipe that may have cut through over time by expansion and contraction and that clean fill should have been used for backfill. This is a statement that they now deny having ever said.

A second copper pipe leak with a 1/16 inch pinhole occurred on November 30, 2008. The hole was on the downside of the hot water line leading from the sink to the shower. I could not see into the small space when the plumber dug out the dirt, and because the hole in the copper was on the downside, it was not immediately apparent where the spot of the leak was until the water was turned on. In any event, the plumber would not say anything about the cause other than S**t happens. The builder/plumbing company covered the repair.

The builder/plumber have never addressed the root cause. If it were because of dirty backfill, it would be a construction defect. California has a 10-year hidden defects law, but I know there is a law that the 10-year period is TOLLED (or extended) if the builder makes repairs, but I don’t know how that extension is calculated. Does anyone, or are there any lawyers that know?

My builder has written a letter for me to sign in response to my inquiries about the possibility of a defect in construction since there is a current legal staff attempting to round up clients against the builder, but he wants me to give up rights in order for his word for protection.

He writes:
“I would like to reiterate that xxx Homes will stand behind any workmanship issues with your home. If your home suffers from workmanship issues, we will address them. However, in doing so, you agree that by addressing any workmanship issues, any Statute of Limitation applicable to labor, materials, work or services provided by xxx Homes at any time in the past (including the original purchase of you home is not tolled, extended or re-started in any other way affected by xxx Homes addressing any workmanship issues.

In the case of your home, workmanship issues are determined according to established industry standards. If another leak occurs in the problem copper pipe and it is determined to be workmanship issue according to these standards, xxx Homes will make the necessary repairs.
…
The undersigned agrees to the forgoing that any Statue of Limitation applicable to work, labor, materials, or services provided by xxx Homes at any time in the past is not tolled, extended or restarted or in any way affected.
… Sign, date and return.”

Would you sign such a document? I would appreciate thoughts.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[jhlwstdnt]

Sounds like they are only trying to be responsible by explaining to you that the 10-year limitations period is not reset by them coming to fix workmanship issues.

[Cedrus]

What does your 1999 purchase contract/warranty say about extending the period if a repair is made? Nothing, I'll bet.

So why would the builder want additional language? Is is because other homes in your area, built by xxx Homes have the same problems?

Are you on city or well water? If well water there is a small chance that very acidic water (low pH) can cause pinhole leaks in copper pipes. But not usually in only 9 years.

[runner26]

Originally Posted by Cedrus

What does your 1999 purchase contract/warranty say about extending the period if a repair is made? Nothing, I'll bet.

So why would the builder want additional language? Is is because other homes in your area, built by xxx Homes have the same problems?

California law extends the warrenty:
[url=http://www.constructionweblinks.com/Resources/Industry_Reports__Newsletters/June_17_2002/california_10yr_statute.htm]California's 10-Year Statute of Repose Extended When Contractor Attempts Repairs[/url]

I have been told by both the builder and the plumbing company that it is not occurring in other homes in the area. None of the neighbors I have talked to have had a problem.

Originally Posted by Cedrus

Are you on city or well water? If well water there is a small chance that very acidic water (low pH) can cause pinhole leaks in copper pipes. But not usually in only 9 years.

I am on city water.

[12345672]

Originally Posted by runner26

Would you sign such a document? I would appreciate thoughts.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

Probably not.

Have a California attorney look at the entire agreement to see if it can be considered a new contract guaranteeing future repairs for poor workmanship. From what you gave here, it looks like they are just trying to keep you from litigating. You may need to weigh your options considering the possibility that the builder may be going under if he is facing a bunch of lawsuits. His insurance and assets can only cover so much.

The article mentions that the ruling was that the SOL was tolled, not restarted. Unless the repairs took a long time to do, you are still likely to be at the end of the SOL.

Originally Posted by jhlwstdnt

Sounds like they are only trying to be responsible by explaining to you that the 10-year limitations period is not reset by them coming to fix workmanship issues.

Are you serious?

If you are serious, demanding a signed agreement that the SOL is not extended from the official completion date by later completion of work that was initially done improperly in order to have more of the defective workmanship repaired is not "only trying to be responsible by explaining".

The OP may or may not have a case for an extended SOL, but if the first repair wasn't done until 8 years after purchase, the OP's case is very different than the case mentioned in the previous post since in that case the defects were known and "repaired" through significant repairs (likely taking significant time) during the first year. The article also mentions that the SOL was tolled, not restarted.

[runner26]

Originally Posted by 12345672

Have a California attorney look at the entire agreement to see if it can be considered a new contract guaranteeing future repairs for poor workmanship. From what you gave here, it looks like they are just trying to keep you from litigating. You may need to weigh your options considering the possibility that the builder may be going under if he is facing a bunch of lawsuits. His insurance and assets can only cover so much.

The article mentions that the ruling was that the SOL was tolled, not restarted. Unless the repairs took a long time to do, you are still likely to be at the end of the SOL.

My thoughts are also, that, I am likely at the end of the SOL. Since the repairs took about 3 weeks in each case, even if tolled for the repair time, I am passed SOL, if tolling just means the repair time, which is why I asked the definition. If this is the case, I may just be best off signing the document to show that I would really rather work with the builder. I just don’t want to shoot myself in the foot. I started pressing the issue because of some responses I got from his staff verbally indicating that I was on my own, which didn't satisfy me.

[jhlwstdnt]

Again 12345..., yes I'm serious.

Maybe if you read Lantzy v. Centex Homes, 31 Cal.4th 363, prior to responding you would know that, depending on the theory of recovery, a lawsuit alleging a latent defect in the construction of an improvement to real property must be brought within 3 years or 4 years after the plaintiff discovers the defect, or should have done so. However, Cal. Civ.Proc. Sec. 337.15 may apply in this instance.

Also, the Court in this case concluded that equitable tolling does not apply to the 10-year statute of limitations set forth in section 337.15. Therefore, the OP does NOT have a case for an extended SOL/warranty whatsoever.

One final issue, the limitations period generally applicable to construction defect claims based on breach of warranty or tortious injury to property begin to run only when defect would be discoverable by reasonable inspection. The inspection for underground MEP was conducted prior to pouring the foundation, and the city inspector found no defects. The foundation, was poured at least 6 months prior to the completion of the home, which had to occur prior to March of 1999. Based on my calculations, the 10-year SOL has passed for this OP.

[John Se]

In all fairness, the builder is standing behind the home even after almost 10 years. And it is true, S*** does happen. Especially when you build thousands of homes. They are sue happy in california, and that mold thing completely outrageous.

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by runner26

Background: New home completed and purchased from a local builder in CA in March 1999. Plumbing is copper pipe is in the ground under a concrete foundation.

Problem: Copper Pipe leak occurred under garage floor in main incoming cold water line on March 30, 2007. Builder/plumbing companies patched pipe by cutting out segment, soldering in new segment and re-concreting ¼ section of garage floor. Plumber said at the time that the 1/16 inch pinhole may have been caused by a stone on the pipe that may have cut through over time by expansion and contraction and that clean fill should have been used for backfill. This is a statement that they now deny having ever said.

A second copper pipe leak with a 1/16 inch pinhole occurred on November 30, 2008. The hole was on the downside of the hot water line leading from the sink to the shower. I could not see into the small space when the plumber dug out the dirt, and because the hole in the copper was on the downside, it was not immediately apparent where the spot of the leak was until the water was turned on. In any event, the plumber would not say anything about the cause other than S**t happens. The builder/plumbing company covered the repair.

The builder/plumber have never addressed the root cause. If it were because of dirty backfill, it would be a construction defect. California has a 10-year hidden defects law, but I know there is a law that the 10-year period is TOLLED (or extended) if the builder makes repairs, but I don’t know how that extension is calculated. Does anyone, or are there any lawyers that know?

My builder has written a letter for me to sign in response to my inquiries about the possibility of a defect in construction since there is a current legal staff attempting to round up clients against the builder, but he wants me to give up rights in order for his word for protection.

He writes:
“I would like to reiterate that xxx Homes will stand behind any workmanship issues with your home. If your home suffers from workmanship issues, we will address them. However, in doing so, you agree that by addressing any workmanship issues, any Statute of Limitation applicable to labor, materials, work or services provided by xxx Homes at any time in the past (including the original purchase of you home is not tolled, extended or re-started in any other way affected by xxx Homes addressing any workmanship issues.

In the case of your home, workmanship issues are determined according to established industry standards. If another leak occurs in the problem copper pipe and it is determined to be workmanship issue according to these standards, xxx Homes will make the necessary repairs.
…
The undersigned agrees to the forgoing that any Statue of Limitation applicable to work, labor, materials, or services provided by xxx Homes at any time in the past is not tolled, extended or restarted or in any way affected.
… Sign, date and return.”

Would you sign such a document? I would appreciate thoughts.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

**A: I would not recommend singing this.

[runner26]

Originally Posted by HomeGuru

**A: I would not recommend singing this.

Could you elaborate with a reason?

[12345672]

Originally Posted by HomeGuru

**A: I would not recommend singing this.

There is no music and no one would want to hear me sing.

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by 12345672

There is no music and no one would want to hear me sing.

**A: that's a good one. I'll drop some bird seed off.