Triggering California’s SB 800 Right to Repair Act: Why the Notice of Claim Matters
California’s Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§ 895–945.5), commonly known as SB 800, requires homeowners to follow a mandatory prelitigation process before filing construction defect lawsuits. That process begins with a written notice of claim.
Whether SB 800 applies at all often turns on whether the homeowner sent a legally sufficient notice under Civil Code section 910. That threshold issue can determine whether statutory timelines, inspection rights, and repair obligations are enforceable.
SB 800 Is Triggered by Notice, Not a Lawsuit
SB 800 is triggered when a homeowner serves a written notice of claim alleging construction defects. The statute gives this notice the same force and effect as the commencement of legal proceedings, even though no lawsuit has been filed. Once notice is properly served, the builder must acknowledge the claim, inspect the property if it elects to do so, and timely respond under the statute.
If the notice is insufficient, the builder may argue SB 800 was never triggered. If it is sufficient, the builder must strictly comply with the statute’s deadlines or risk losing its statutory protections.
Civil Code Section 910: Precise Requirements, Practical Application
Civil Code section 910 sets out what appear to be precise prerequisites for triggering the SB 800 prelitigation process. The statute requires a written notice, served by specified methods, identifying the claimant, alleging a violation of the Right to Repair Act, and describing the claimed defects in reasonable detail sufficient to determine their nature and location.
Standing alone, section 910 can read as demanding strict formal compliance, suggesting that deviations in format, labeling, or specificity could defeat a homeowner’s ability to invoke SB 800. In practice, however, the statute’s precision is aimed at substance rather than ceremony. The listed requirements exist to ensure the builder receives meaningful notice and a fair opportunity to respond—not to elevate form over function.
This distinction becomes critical in disputes over whether SB 800 was properly triggered. While the elements of section 910 matter, courts focus on whether the notice accomplished its intended purpose.
Blanchette v. Superior Court: Imperfect Notices Still Count
In Blanchette v. Superior Court (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 521, the Court of Appeal held that even a facially deficient notice can trigger SB 800 if it contains the basic statutory elements. A builder who believes a notice lacks detail may not ignore it. Instead, the builder must acknowledge receipt and raise any concerns within the statutory timeframe.
Blanchette makes clear that SB 800 favors prompt engagement over technical gamesmanship. Builders who fail to respond risk forfeiting the statute’s protections.
Why Triggering SB 800 Matters
Properly triggering SB 800 starts the clock on the builder’s obligations and limits delay. If a builder fails to timely acknowledge the claim, inspect, offer repairs, or complete repairs, the homeowner may be released from the prelitigation process and proceed directly to litigation.
A Practical Note on Getting It Right
Because SB 800 notice triggers strict timelines and significant legal consequences, small missteps at the outset can create problems later. While the law allows some flexibility in form, disputes over sufficiency, service, and timing are common and often aggressively litigated. In practice, involving experienced counsel early can help ensure the notice is properly drafted, served, and documented, and can reduce the risk that procedural issues overshadow the merits of the defect claims themselves.
Key Takeaway
SB 800 notice disputes are common, but courts focus on substance, not labels. As Blanchette demonstrates, imperfect notices can still be legally effective, and builders ignore them at their own risk. Given the procedural complexity and stakes, careful handling of the notice stage is often critical to protecting a homeowner’s rights.