Plaintiff insurer sued defendant home seller in subrogation to recover the insured's relocation expenses, incurred while the insured was out of his home during the seller's repair of a burst pipe in the sprinkler system. The Superior Court of Orange County, California, dismissed the complaint, finding that it was time barred under the Right to Repair Act, Civ. Code, § 895 et seq. The insurer appealed.

Overview: civil code 3336

The court of appeal held that the Right to Repair Act, Civ. Code, § 895 et seq., does not provide the exclusive remedy or eliminate a property owner's common law rights and remedies where actual damage has occurred. Accordingly, the insurer's complaint in subrogation, based on the insured's right to recover actual damages from the home seller for relocation costs during the repair, stated causes of action for strict liability, negligence, breach of contract, breach of warranty, equitable estoppel, and declaratory relief. Those claims were not time barred for failing to comply with the act.

Outcome

The court reversed the judgment.