Ten-year builder liability lawyer Paris: serious defects, insurance and remedies.

The ten-year builder's liability is the liability by operation of law that rests on every builder of a work for ten years from acceptance. Article 1792 of the Civil Code provides that every builder of a work is liable by operation of law, towards the project owner or the purchaser of the work, for damage, even where it results from a defect in the ground, that compromises the structural soundness of the work or that, affecting it in one of its constituent elements or one of its items of equipment, makes it unfit for its purpose (our translation).

The mechanism rests on a presumption: the project owner does not have to prove the builder's fault. It is enough to establish the existence of a defect serious enough to engage ten-year liability and its link with the work. The builder can escape liability only by demonstrating an external cause. This reverses the burden of proof and makes ten-year liability the project owner's main weapon against serious defects that appear after acceptance.

Article 1792 of the Civil Code identifies two categories of defects: those that compromise the structural soundness of the work and those that affecting it in one of its constituent elements or one of its items of equipment, make it unfit for its purpose (our translation). The first category covers structural cracks, foundation defects and instability of floors or roof frames. The second concerns defects that prevent normal use of the property: massive water ingress, waterproofing failures, major malfunction of an inseparable item of equipment.

The Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stated in a judgment of 13 February 2020 (No. 19-10.249, Bull, Rapport) that every builder of a work is liable by operation of law, towards the project owner or the purchaser of the work, for damage, even where it results from a defect in the ground, that compromises the structural soundness of the work or that, affecting it in one of its constituent elements or one of its items of equipment, makes it unfit for its purpose (our translation). Classification is central and determines the outcome of the case.

The ten-year period runs from acceptance of the works, defined by article 1792-6 of the Civil Code, which provides that acceptance is the act by which the project owner declares that it accepts the work, with or without reservations. It takes place at the request of the more diligent party, either amicably or, failing that, by the court (our translation). Acceptance is the pivotal legal act that closes the contractual construction phase and opens the statutory warranty.

Article 1792-4-1 of the Civil Code specifies that any individual or legal entity whose liability may be engaged under articles 1792 to 1792-4 of this Code is discharged from the liabilities and warranties resting on it, under articles 1792 to 1792-2, after ten years from acceptance of the works or, under article 1792-3, on expiry of the period referred to in that article (our translation). The period is a time bar: it can be interrupted only by a writ of summons, and not by a mere acknowledgement by the debtor, as the Third Civil Chamber held, for the ten-year period of article 1792-4-3 (ordinary contractual liability), in a judgment of 10 June 2021 (No. 20-16.837, Bull, Rapport).

Article 1792-1 of the Civil Code deems to be a builder any architect, contractor, technician or other person bound to the project owner by a contract for work, as well as any person who sells, after completion, a work that it has built or had built and any person who, although acting as agent of the owner of the work, performs a task comparable to that of a contractor for the works (our translation). The scope is wide.

The general contractor, the architect, the design office, the quantity surveyor, the property developer and the builder of individual houses can all be sued. The Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held on 11 May 2022 (No. 21-15.217, Bull) that the builder's liability by operation of law for damage of ten-year nature applies only to defects that appeared after acceptance (our translation). A joint and several (in solidum) order may be made against all the participants who contributed to the defect.

Yes, without any restriction. Article 1792-1 of the Civil Code expressly refers to any architect, contractor, technician or other person bound to the project owner by a contract for work (our translation). The architect is presumed liable by operation of law for defects within the scope of the design or site-supervision assignment, unless an external cause unrelated to the architect's work is proved.

The architect may be ordered to pay alone or jointly and severally (in solidum) with the contractor. Where the defect results from a design error or a failure of supervision, the architect's liability is fully engaged. In practice, the architect is often sued together with the insurer (notably the Mutuelle des architectes français) to secure effective enforcement of the order. This mechanism frequently leads to prompt compensation, without having to trace the exact author of the defect. To go further, see the page on construction defects.

No, but it complicates enforcement. Article L. 241-1 of the Insurance Code requires that any individual or legal entity whose ten-year liability may be engaged on the basis of the presumption established by articles 1792 et seq. of the Civil Code must be covered by insurance (our translation). Failure to take out insurance is a criminal offence (article L. 243-3) and exposes the builder's personal assets.

In practice, where the contractor is uninsured and in liquidation, an order becomes difficult to enforce. The Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held on 11 May 2022 (No. 21-15.217, Bull) that compulsory ten-year liability insurance does not cover apparent defects which, whatever their degree of gravity, are covered by acceptance without reservations (our translation). A project owner with building-damage insurance benefits from pre-financing and remains protected. To go further, see the page on building-damage insurance.

The loss consists of the cost of restoring the work, possibly supplemented by indirect losses (loss of use, temporary accommodation costs, loss in value of the property, expert costs). The method is rigorous: multiple quotes priced by several contractors, an adversarial expert assessment, amicable or court-appointed, and account taken of works already carried out as protective measures.

The project owner must avoid two errors: understating the claim by relying on a single low quote, or overstating it by claiming repairs exceeding the restoration needed. Case law applies the principle of full compensation: the owner must be put back in the position it would have been in without the defect. Judges check that the quotes are consistent with the expert report and do not award manifestly excessive compensation. Preparation of the financial file determines the outcome of the hearing.

Not formally, but it is generally decisive. A court-appointed expert assessment ordered on an urgent application under article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it possible to establish, on an adversarial basis, the ten-year nature of the defects, their extent and the cost of repair. It becomes necessary as soon as the parties disagree on classification or on the amount of the repairs.

The expert report is a central item of evidence on the merits. It fixes the date on which the defects appeared, their causal link with the works and the amount of the repair. The Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has stressed in several judgments that the judge is not bound by the expert's conclusions but must give reasons for departing from them. The firm's practice is to seek a court-appointed expert assessment on an urgent application as soon as a serious defect appears, in order to fix the classification and build a file that can be relied on against all participants.

No, unless express reservations are recorded in the acceptance report. The Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held on 11 May 2022 (No. 21-15.217, Bull) that the builder's liability by operation of law for damage of ten-year nature applies only to defects that appeared after acceptance and that compulsory ten-year liability insurance does not cover apparent defects which, whatever their degree of gravity, are covered by acceptance without reservations (our translation).

A project owner who notices a visible defect at the time of acceptance must have it recorded as a reservation. The reservation triggers the one-year completion warranty under article 1792-6, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, which covers for one year the defects and faults noted. Reservations are lifted by written finding. Without a reservation, the visible defect is regarded as accepted and falls outside ten-year liability. To go further, see the page on acceptance of the works.

Article 1792 of the Civil Code lays down the general principle of the builder's ten-year liability. Article 1792-2 of the Civil Code extends this presumption to damage affecting the soundness of the items of equipment of a work, but only where they form an inseparable whole with the utilities, foundation, framework, enclosure or roofing works (our translation).

The distinction is decisive. The Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held on 13 February 2020 (No. 19-10.249, Bull, Rapport) that a façade render, which is a work where it has a waterproofing function, is not an item of equipment, even if it has a damp-proofing function, provided that it is not designed to operate (our translation). Classification as a work or as an item of equipment determines the applicable regime and the scope of the warranty. Judges examine the technical function of the element in dispute case by case.

Yes. Acceptance is the legal act that triggers the ten-year period. Without acceptance, whether amicable, judicial or tacit, ten-year liability does not apply: the relationship remains contractual under ordinary law. The Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held on 11 May 2022 (No. 21-15.217, Bull) that the builder's liability by operation of law for damage of ten-year nature applies only to defects that appeared after acceptance (our translation).

Article 1792-6 of the Civil Code specifies that acceptance takes place at the request of the more diligent party, either amicably or, failing that, by the court (our translation). Where the contractor refuses to request acceptance, the project owner may apply to the court for compulsory acceptance. The date of acceptance conditions everything: the ten-year period, the place of trial, the scope of the insurers involved. Fixing it is not a side issue. To go further, see the page on acceptance of the works.

The two-year warranty, known as the good-working-order warranty, is laid down by article 1792-3 of the Civil Code, which provides that the other items of equipment of the work are covered by a good-working-order warranty of a minimum duration of two years from its acceptance (our translation). It covers items of equipment that are separable from the work: shutters, taps, built-in household appliances, certain interior doors.

The distinction turns on whether the element is separable or inseparable. Where the element forms an inseparable whole with the work, ten-year liability applies. Where it is separable, the two-year warranty applies for 2 years. Beyond that, ordinary contractual liability remains possible within the ten-year period of article 1792-4-3, which the Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation classified as a time bar in its judgment of 10 June 2021 (No. 20-16.837, Bull, Rapport). The classification of each defect determines the time limit and the procedural weapon to deploy.

The competent judicial court is, in principle, that of the place where the defendant resides (article 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure); the claimant may also bring the case, at their choice, before the court of the place where the service is performed in contractual matters, or of the harmful event in tort matters (article 46), generally that of the place where the property is situated. For a Paris property, the Paris judicial court may therefore hear the ten-year liability dispute. The Paris court of appeal then has jurisdiction on appeal.

For sites in the inner suburbs, the judicial courts of Bobigny, Créteil, Nanterre or Versailles may have jurisdiction depending on the municipality. The firm, located at 11 rue Margueritte 75017 Paris, regularly pleads before these courts and coordinates court-appointed expert assessments throughout the jurisdiction of the Paris court of appeal. Procedural rigour is essential: the ten-year liability period must be observed, all the participants who may be sued must be identified, and cross-joinders must be used to preserve remedies.

Early involvement of a lawyer is an elementary rule of prudence. As the ten-year period is a matter of public policy, a badly prepared case may be left with no judicial outcome at all. Building a complete evidence file, sending formal notices to the builders and their insurers, bringing an urgent application for an expert and coordinating with any building-damage insurer are all steps that require legal expertise.

The lawyer drafts correspondence as if it were already a writ of summons. The lawyer identifies all the participants potentially liable, calculates the ten-year liability period, engages the insurers, prepares the adversarial expert assessment and decides the strategy of action. The Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation recalled in its judgment of 10 June 2021 (No. 20-16.837, Bull, Rapport) that the ten-year period for bringing proceedings against builders on the basis of article 1792-4-3 of the Civil Code is a time bar, which is not, unless otherwise provided, governed by the provisions on limitation periods (our translation). Procedural caution is decisive.