• Subsequent Purchasers May Now Have More Rights Against Homebuilders Than Original Purchasers
  • December 13, 2012 | Author: Jill Ann Herman
  • Law Firm: Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP - Phoenix Office
  • Following the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling in Richards v Powercraft permitting subsequent purchasers to pursue implied warranty claims even in the absence of privity, Arizona courts have had a difficult time determining whether to categorize this creature of public policy as a tort or a contract claim.  If the claim arises out of contract, legal reasoning suggests that litigants could be entitled to recover attorneys' fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01, with potential liability constrained by both Arizona's Statute of Repose and the Economic Loss Doctrine which would work in tandem to limit the pursuit of non-contractual remedies and define the time period for filing such claims.  Conversely, if the implied warranty is considered a tort claim, the recovery of fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would be prohibited and the time period for pursuing claims would be determined by when the alleged defect was discovered.