Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Defects Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances revisions to construction-defect remedy process after extended debate; reservations recorded
Summary
After contrasting testimony from builders and plaintiffs’ attorneys, the committee advanced HB420, a bill amending construction-defect procedures and the Contractor Repair Act, adopting negotiated compromise edits but recording several members’ reservations.
The committee advanced a contentious bill to reform parts of Hawaii’s construction-defect law after lengthy testimony from homebuilders, unions, property managers, and plaintiff-side attorneys.
Supporters — including homebuilders, the Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters, operating engineers, property managers and certain nonprofits — argued the Contractor Repair Act process and existing class-action practice are being used in ways that delay repairs, block construction, raise insurance and lending costs and inflate housing prices. Builders said mass inspections requested in some class actions have stalled construction and prevented projects from using mortgage programs that first-time buyers rely on.
Opponents — plaintiff-side counsel and tenant and homeowner advocates — argued the bill would unduly restrict homeowners’ ability to seek full recovery for construction defects, limit class actions that have enabled cost-effective repair programs, shorten statutes of limitation and cap recoveries to the value of a contractor’s repair offer. Plaintiff-side attorneys said class actions have been essential to get safety-related widespread defects fixed and that the proposed changes could leave homeowners bearing costs for systemic defects.
Stakeholders reported progress in negotiations and the committee adopted a set of compromise drafting changes the chair described as negotiated over several days. Key edits adopted in the committee draft include narrowing or clarifying the statute-of-repose language, changing certain definitions (for example, revising “material violation” language to focus on violations that may reasonably result in physical harm or significant damage to building performance), and limiting the bill’s effect to prospective cases per committee discussion (the chair asked that the consumer protection chair include prospective-only language in the committee report).
The committee moved HB420 forward with those compromise amendments; several members recorded reservations on the recommendation.
