Why Developers Should Track All Warranty Claims

 

Does the Responsible Developer track all warranty claims?  Absolutely, it is just good business!

It is axiomatic that when a development project is complete that there are a number of warranties that must be tracked and managed as part of the post project completion entitlements and obligations.  This risk management process applies to all projects, public and private, and depending on who you are in the project hierarchy, it is a continuation of the project financial analysis.

Yet many parties to the project myopically focus solely on the contractual written warranty period, which typically is one year.  The Responsible Developer, however, tracks all relevant warranty periods including those express and implied at law warranties.  Why?  Because anything less may just be throwing money away.  Who can afford to do that in these challenging economic times?  

The actual process is relatively simple.  Once a project achieves substantial completion, the following warranties should be calendared and tracked:

1.  90 days prior to expiration of contractor's 1 year warranty.

2.  90 days prior to expiration of any manufacturers' warranties.

3.  180 days prior to expiration of all (3,4 and 6 year) contract statutes of limitation and repose.

The reason you calendar these dates is so that you can inspect and test the work, materials and systems in your project for any premature failures or damage and give your self enough time to document it and provide that written information to the party the owes you the warranty obligation-before that party is immune from suit.

Some public developers may be less concerned about the expiration of statutes of limitation because Washington law provides that where the work was for the benefit of the state the six year statute of limitations does not apply.  A public entity, however cannot afford to rest on that laurel too long, because many contractors are either corporations or limited liability companies that after the project may become dissolved and immune from suit.  While there are artful ways to draft around such future warranty impediments in the contract, developers can easily monitor the status of their contractor's legal status by using the information maintained by the Washington Secretary of State and Labor and Industries.

The reason you as the Responsible Developer need to make this effort is so that in the event a post completion inspection reveals latent defects in a product or work, you will be able to timely make a claim and either obtain repairs, insurance money or both.  If you fail to calendar these dates or make the effort, then you may just be throwing money away.  Imagine being asked by tax payers or investors why no one had the foresight to include this analysis as part of your project.

Well now you know what the Responsible Developer does as an integral part of maximizing the value of all of the warranties it may be a beneficiary of.

Can homebuying consumers bear the cost of new green and energy codes during recession?

Some of our prior posts included information about new energy efficient “Net Zero” Homes and California’s landmark decision to mandate a Green Building Code (CALGREEN). However, there may be unintended financial consequences when code officials mandate green and more energy efficient homes. 

Concern about these consequences caused the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) to file a lawsuit on behalf of its members.  The complaint alleges that the end result of new provisions in the Washington State Energy Code that go into effect in July 2010 will be that fewer homes will be built and sold because consumers cannot afford to buy the homes that would be built under the new code requirements.  BIAW alleges that the cost to comply with these code requirements would increase the cost of an average home by $4,000-$15,000.  Probably a tough sell to first time buyers in recession. 

According to the Washington State Building Code Counsel (SBCC) in the long run these code requirements will result in lower energy costs over the life of the homes.  However that may be small consolation to buyers who cannot afford these energy efficient and code compliant homes in the first place.

This possible energy and code conflict would not be the first of its kind in Washington.  In the 1990s building and energy codes mandated tighter insulated buildings that featured exterior fire resistive gypsum sheathing.  The problem was that in wet climates like western Washington, when rain penetrated behind cladding, the result was mold, a loss of structural capacity and hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage.  This conflict also dramatically increased the cost of insurance on residential construction projects and hence increased the cost of homes.

So apparently major changes in building and energy code requirements may need to be tested by the courts and mother nature before code officials, builders and consumers all realize the intended benefits.