Can a Homeowner Reject a Builder’s Repair Offer Under California’s SB 800?

Under California’s SB 800 Right to Repair Act, homeowners who believe a builder’s proposed repair is inadequate often assume they can simply reject it and move forward with a lawsuit or hire their own contractors. In most cases, that assumption is incorrect.

SB 800 establishes a mandatory prelitigation process that strongly favors allowing the builder an opportunity to repair alleged construction defects before litigation may proceed. While the statute does provide limited exceptions, outright rejection of a repair offer is generally not one of them.

The Builder’s Statutory Right to Repair

California courts have repeatedly emphasized that the central feature of SB 800 is the builder’s right to attempt repairs before being sued. The process begins when a homeowner serves written notice of construction defect claims. Once notice is given, the builder has the right to inspect the property and, if it chooses, to offer repairs under the statute’s structured procedures.

The statute imposes strict timelines. Builders must acknowledge receipt of the notice within 14 days, complete inspections within 14 days after acknowledgment, and may offer repairs within 30 days of inspection. This framework reflects the Legislature’s intent to prioritize repair over litigation.

Limited Homeowner Options When a Repair Is Offered

When a builder makes a repair offer, the homeowner’s options are narrowly defined. Civil Code section 918 does not allow a homeowner to simply reject the offer because it appears inadequate. Instead, the homeowner must either authorize the builder to perform the repairs or request up to three alternative contractors who are not owned or controlled by the builder.

If alternative contractors are requested, the statute allows an additional inspection, requires the builder to present contractor options within specified timeframes, and then requires the homeowner to authorize either the builder or one of the selected contractors. Even if mediation is requested and fails, the statute expressly requires that the repair be allowed to proceed.

When Litigation Is Permitted Without Allowing Repair

Although SB 800 generally requires homeowners to allow repair attempts, the statute recognizes important exceptions.

First, if the builder fails to strictly comply with the statutory timelines—by failing to acknowledge notice, inspect, offer repairs, or complete repairs as required—the homeowner is released from the prelitigation process and may proceed directly to litigation. Courts have held that missed deadlines can have this effect even where the homeowner’s initial notice was imperfect.

Second, SB 800 allows builders to make a cash settlement offer instead of a repair offer. In that specific circumstance, the homeowner may accept the cash offer or reject it and immediately file suit. This is one of the few contexts in which outright rejection is expressly permitted.

Third, if repairs are completed but are inadequate or improperly performed, the homeowner may file an action for violation of SB 800 standards, inadequate repair, or both.

Post-Repair Rights and Available Damages

Allowing a repair does not mean the homeowner forfeits legal rights. SB 800 expressly prohibits builders from conditioning required repairs on a release or waiver of claims. After repairs are completed, homeowners may pursue litigation and recover a broad range of damages, including the reasonable cost of correcting defective or improper repairs, damages caused by repair efforts, investigative costs, and relocation expenses.

This damages framework is designed to ensure that homeowners are not economically harmed by being required to allow repairs that ultimately prove insufficient.

No General Right to Self-Repair During the Process

SB 800 does not authorize homeowners to bypass the statutory process and perform their own repairs simply because they believe the builder’s proposal is inadequate. The statute consistently channels homeowners through the builder repair process or the alternative contractor procedure.

While successful litigation can later recover the cost of proper repairs, unilateral self-repair during the prelitigation phase is not contemplated by the statute.

A Note on Emergency Situations

California courts have acknowledged that emergency conditions present difficult questions under SB 800, particularly where defects cause sudden or escalating damage and homeowners act reasonably to mitigate losses. However, the California Supreme Court has expressly declined to definitively resolve how SB 800 applies in true emergency scenarios. As a result, any emergency-based deviation from the statutory process remains narrow and fact-specific.

Key Takeaway

Under California’s SB 800 Right to Repair Act, homeowners generally may not reject a builder’s repair offer outright, even if it appears inadequate. The statute prioritizes repair, limits homeowner response options, and permits litigation only in defined circumstances—such as missed deadlines, cash settlement offers, or inadequate completed repairs. While SB 800 preserves meaningful post-repair remedies, navigating the process requires careful attention to the statute’s timelines and constraints.