
In Zambrano v. M & RC II LLC, et al., 2022 Ariz. LEXIS 309, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that a homebuilder and homebuyer could not waive or disclaim the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. While the court would normally enforce a contract between two parties – even if one side made a “bad deal” – they will not do so if the contract’s terms are against public policy.
In this case, Tina Zambrano (Zambrano) signed a purchase agreement with the homebuilder to buy a newly built home. The agreement included provisions which expressly disclaimed any implied warranties, including the warranty of habitability and workmanship. After the purchase, Zambrano claimed that there were construction defects within the home, including popped nails in the drywall and issues with the home’s foundation. Zambrano sued the homebuilder for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. The homebuilder moved for summary judgment based on the waivers within the contract and the trial court, agreeing that the waivers applied, dismissed the case. Zambrano appealed and the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court specifically explained that Arizona has a public policy interest in protecting consumers.
The Supreme Court of Arizona upheld the appellate court’s reversal and agreed that a waiver of the implied warranty of habitability and workmanship is against public policy. However, the state’s high court provided different reasoning than the appellate court for its holding. The court described, in depth, the “vastly unequal bargaining power, expertise, and knowledge” that exists between a homebuilder and homebuyer. The court went on to say that a homebuyer must heavily rely on the builder’s knowledge and skill. Further, homebuyers are not in a position to discover defects lurking within the walls, or those that are covered up during a normal home inspection. The court noted that if such warranty disclaimers were allowed, homebuilders would surely place the provision within every contract, leading to homes potentially sitting in disrepair forever. Further, public policy promotes builders using minimum standards of good workmanship, which conforms to a homebuyer’s reasonable expectations.
In continuing to uphold the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability, the Supreme Court of Arizona seeks to protect unknowing homebuyers from issues that might not reveal themselves for years. Thus, subrogation professionals practicing in Arizona and representing insured homebuyers should look for attempted contractual waivers of the warranty of workmanship and habitability and, if found, argue that the waivers are unenforceable because they are against public policy.
Recent Posts
Categories
- Products Liability
- Evidence
- CPSC Recalls
- Subrogation
- Experts – Daubert
- Construction Defects
- New Jersey
- Statute of Limitations-Repose
- Causation
- New York
- Certificate of Merit
- Podcast
- California
- Experts - Reliability
- Jurisdiction
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Condemnation
- Negligence
- CPSC Warning
- Minnesota
- Contracts
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Rhode Island
- Pennsylvania
- Texas
- Florida
- Workers' Compensation
- Economic Loss Rule
- Cargo - Transportation
- Malpractice
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Water Loss
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Comparative-Contributory Negligence
- Contribution-Apportionment
- AIA Contracts
- Assignment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Civil Procedure
- Product Liability
- Res Judicata
- Arbitration
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- Litigation
- West Virginia
- Wyoming
- Oklahoma
- Georgia
- Limitation of Liability
- Builder's Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Illinois
- Insurable Interest
- Mississippi
- Made Whole
- Delaware
- Settlement
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Construction
- Premises Liability
- Joint or Several Liability
- Montana
- Duty
- Privity
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Massachusetts
- Landlord
- Tenant
- Building Code
- Arizona
Tags
- Products Liability
- Subrogation
- Evidence
- Construction Defects
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Experts - Reliability
- Experts – Daubert
- New Jersey
- Podcast
- Product Liability
- Malfunction Theory
- Subro Sessions
- Texas
- Causation
- New York
- Certificate of Merit
- Contracts
- California
- Waiver of Subrogation
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Experts
- Maryland
- Landlord-Tenant
- Jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction - Personal
- Statute of Repose
- Construction Contracts
- Negligence
- Condemnation
- Inverse Condemnation
- Louisiana
- Minnesota
- Statute of Limitations - Accrual
- Amazon-eBay
- Civil Procedure
- Georgia
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Illinois
- Pennsylvania
- Made Whole
- Experts – Qualifications
- Statute of Limitations
- Sutton Doctrine
- Water Damage
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Rhode Island
- Arizona
- Florida
- Economic Loss Doctrine
- Public Policy
- Design Defect
- Expert Qualifications
- West Virginia
- Amazon
- Negligent Undertaking
- Limitation of Liability
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Indiana
- Tennessee
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Improvement
- Negligence – Duty
- Warranty - Implied
- Apportionment
- Privity
- Malpractice
- Statute of Limitations - Tolling
- Spoliation
- Statute of Limitations – Discovery Rule
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- Independent Duty
- Ohio
- Settlement
- Michigan
- Comparative Fault
- Contracts - Formation
- Condominiums
- Non-Party at Fault
- Massachusetts
- Unconscionable
- Missouri
- Parties
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- Res Judicata
- Arbitration
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Wisconsin
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility
- Architects-Engineers
- Lithium-ion battery
- Internet Sales
- Anti-Subrogation Rule; Wyoming; Landlord-Tenant; Sutton Doctrine
- Oklahoma
- Sanctions
- Spoliation – Fire Scene
- Exculpatory Clause
- Gross Negligence
- Builder’s Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Insurable Interest
- Mississippi
- Daubert
- Standing
- Third Party
- Accepted Work
- Montana
- Independent Contractor
- Res Ipsa
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Workers’ Compensation
- AIA Contract
- Betterment
- Damages
- Damages-Code Upgrades
- Statute of Limitations - Repose
- Washington
- Implied Warranty of Habitability
- Warranty - Construction
- Idaho
- First Party Claims
- Joint-Tortfeasors
- Forum-Venue
- Warranty – Express
- AIA Contracts
- Anti-Indemnity Statutes
- Indemnification
- Products Liability - Foreseeability
- Cargo-Transportation
- Contribution
- MCS-90
- Substantial Completion
Authors
Archives
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022