Before any California construction defect matter moves forward (whether you're an attorney evaluating a new intake or an insurance carrier assessing exposure), five things are worth confirming early. Getting these wrong, or leaving them unconfirmed, tends to surface later at the worst possible moment: during a motion, a deposition, or a settlement conference. None of this is exotic law. It's foundational. But it's foundational in a way that's easy to skip past when a case first lands on your desk.
This isn't a substitute for legal advice (see the full California State Guide for the underlying statutes), but it's the checklist our forensic team runs through at intake on every California matter.
- 1. Patent or latent: can you tell the difference yet? California applies a genuinely different limitations period depending on whether a defect is patent (apparent by reasonable inspection) or latent (not apparent by reasonable inspection): four years under Code of Civil Procedure §337.1 for patent defects, ten years under §337.15 for latent ones. Getting this classification wrong at intake can mean building a case around the wrong deadline. It's worth a forensic read specifically to answer this question before anything else gets built on top of it.
- 2. Which limitations period is actually running and how much runway is left? Once patent-versus-latent is settled, the next question is simple arithmetic that's easy to get wrong under time pressure: how many years have actually passed since substantial completion and by which of §337.15's own definitions (final inspection, recorded notice of completion, occupancy, or one year after work ceased) does that clock start? The California Supreme Court's Lantzy v. Centex Homes decision confirmed the §337.15 outer boundary isn't tolled by ordinary equitable arguments, so this isn't a deadline with much give in it.
- 3. Does the Right to Repair Act apply and has the pre-litigation process run? For new residential units first sold after January 1, 2003, the Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §895 et seq.) is the exclusive remedy for claims within its scope, per McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court. That means confirming whether a matter falls inside the Act's scope and, if so, whether the mandatory pre-litigation notice-and-repair process (§§910–938) has actually been satisfied before a complaint gets filed, skipping this step is a common, avoidable procedural misstep.
- 4. Was every contractor on the job actually licensed the whole time? Business & Professions Code §7031 changes the financial picture independent of construction quality: an unlicensed contractor can't sue to collect payment and the party who paid one can sue to recover everything paid, even for work that was performed competently. A CSLB licensure history check is a fast, early step that can materially change a damages analysis before deeper forensic work even begins.
- 5. Is the physical evidence still there and who's tracking that clock? None of the above matters if the underlying evidence has degraded, been repaired over, or become inaccessible. Sites get sold, remediated, or demolished. Witnesses move on. The earlier a forensic investigation starts, the more evidentiary options stay open. This is less a legal question than a practical one, but it's the item most likely to quietly foreclose options if it's left for later.
None of this replaces a full forensic scope or legal analysis: it's the short list worth running through before either one starts, so both are built on solid footing. For the underlying statutes, deadlines and licensing framework in more depth, see our full California Construction Law Guide.
This article is a general informational overview, not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client or expert-client relationship. Confirm current applicability with qualified California counsel before relying on any deadline or standard described here.
