Saying the existing ‘right to repair law’ reduces lawsuits is kind of twisted isn’t it? Yeah, it ‘reduces lawsuits’ by hamstringing the home buyer so they have less legal recourse when a builder builds a defective house. The industry has gotten ‘right to repair’ passed in at least half the states I believe. The laws are for builders, not consumers.
A homeowner with a badly built house, even one that’s uninhabitable and unsafe, finds that builder friendly laws, and rights-stripping arbitration clauses have given them almost no recourse.
Arbitration is often biased in the industry’s favor mainly due to the repeat-player effect between these corporations and the arbitrators. One construction arbitration firm was actually run by a disbarred lawyer. The homeowner rarely wins, or if they do, they “win” a fraction of their actual damages.
Because individual cases are not profitable to lawyers most of the time, homeowners who can sue may not be able to retain quality legal help. This means many individual cases are not resolved, but the homeowner eats the loss and tries to move on. Even if they win a case they may never collect, or they may only collect part of the judgment. These facts are almost never reported in mainstream media which prefers to focus on the rare large-sounding award, without adding things that often happen such as a judge reducing the amount, most of the award going to pay for the expense of trying the case, the builder appealing, or the homeowner never collecting.
A law that would undo the harm caused by a ‘right to repair law’ passed by builders would be a good thing for consumers. If builders really want to reduce lawsuits, there is only one ethical, common sense way to do it; build houses right in the first place, and honor their warranties without a fight.
Regarding the last sentence of your post, back in the late 90s many reputable home builders were acting ethically, fixing mistakes, and honoring warranties but that was not enough for consumer groups and the legal industry who have made “construction defect” a cottage industry. Your post is one sided and fails to point out why “right to cure” was necessary in the first place. I agree there a bad builders out there but they exist in every state, not just Arizona.
My side is the side of homeowners who are financially ruined by shoddy construction. I’ve seen many homeowners lose everything just because their builder didn’t know or care how to do things right, and it was so hard to hold them accountable. Right to repair/cure was not brought about because of greedy or unreasonable consumers; it was brought about because so many consumers were trying to hold bad builders accountable and the industry’s reaction was to insulate their industry from accountability. This is a twisted way to “solve” the construction defect problem. It’s like a hospital saying the way to solve the problem with post surgical staph infections is to kill the patients who get it.
Saying the existing ‘right to repair law’ reduces lawsuits is kind of twisted isn’t it? Yeah, it ‘reduces lawsuits’ by hamstringing the home buyer so they have less legal recourse when a builder builds a defective house. The industry has gotten ‘right to repair’ passed in at least half the states I believe. The laws are for builders, not consumers.
A homeowner with a badly built house, even one that’s uninhabitable and unsafe, finds that builder friendly laws, and rights-stripping arbitration clauses have given them almost no recourse.
Arbitration is often biased in the industry’s favor mainly due to the repeat-player effect between these corporations and the arbitrators. One construction arbitration firm was actually run by a disbarred lawyer. The homeowner rarely wins, or if they do, they “win” a fraction of their actual damages.
Because individual cases are not profitable to lawyers most of the time, homeowners who can sue may not be able to retain quality legal help. This means many individual cases are not resolved, but the homeowner eats the loss and tries to move on. Even if they win a case they may never collect, or they may only collect part of the judgment. These facts are almost never reported in mainstream media which prefers to focus on the rare large-sounding award, without adding things that often happen such as a judge reducing the amount, most of the award going to pay for the expense of trying the case, the builder appealing, or the homeowner never collecting.
A law that would undo the harm caused by a ‘right to repair law’ passed by builders would be a good thing for consumers. If builders really want to reduce lawsuits, there is only one ethical, common sense way to do it; build houses right in the first place, and honor their warranties without a fight.
Regarding the last sentence of your post, back in the late 90s many reputable home builders were acting ethically, fixing mistakes, and honoring warranties but that was not enough for consumer groups and the legal industry who have made “construction defect” a cottage industry. Your post is one sided and fails to point out why “right to cure” was necessary in the first place. I agree there a bad builders out there but they exist in every state, not just Arizona.
Not to worry – as I write this, the Home Owner’s Bill of Rights (litigation enhancment Act)is being torched at the polls – and rightly so.
This travesty should have been called the Buyer’s Remorse Bill or Lawyer’s Trust Fund Act.
shheeeesh !
My side is the side of homeowners who are financially ruined by shoddy construction. I’ve seen many homeowners lose everything just because their builder didn’t know or care how to do things right, and it was so hard to hold them accountable. Right to repair/cure was not brought about because of greedy or unreasonable consumers; it was brought about because so many consumers were trying to hold bad builders accountable and the industry’s reaction was to insulate their industry from accountability. This is a twisted way to “solve” the construction defect problem. It’s like a hospital saying the way to solve the problem with post surgical staph infections is to kill the patients who get it.