How the 'Right to Cure' Impacts Commercial Roofing Accountability

Understanding the Right to Cure

In most California commercial roofing contracts, the "Right to Cure" is a legal provision that grants the installing contractor the opportunity to repair or "cure" a defect before the property owner can seek damages or hire a third party to perform the work. While this protects the contractor from losing revenue to competitors for minor issues, it can create significant risk for facility managers during active leak events.

The Risk of Unauthorized Repairs

When a commercial roof leaks, the immediate priority is protecting interior assets. However, if an owner hires a different roofing company to perform an emergency repair without notifying the original contractor, several complications arise:

  1. Warranty Voidance: Most workmanship warranties explicitly state that any alteration by another party renders the warranty null and void.
  2. Liability Shifting: If the original leak causes damage, the first contractor may argue that the third party’s intervention made it impossible to determine the root cause of the failure.
  3. Cost Recovery Issues: Owners may find it impossible to recover the costs of a third-party repair if the original contractor was not given the contractually mandated notice.

Mitigating Risk Before the Leak Occurs

To maintain accountability, decision-makers should verify that the contract includes a specific "Emergency Response" exception to the Right to Cure. This exception should define the timeframe (e.g., 4 to 24 hours) within which the contractor must respond to an emergency. If the contractor fails to meet this window, the owner should have the documented right to engage a third party for temporary stabilization without jeopardizing the long-term workmanship warranty.

Key Takeaways

Next step

Review your service agreement for specific response time requirements and 'Right to Cure' language before an active leak occurs.

View the verification checklist