Arizona Supreme Court | 218 Ariz. 574, 190 P.3d 733 (2008)
A builder who is not also the vendor of the residence may still be sued for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability; lack of contractual privity does not bar the claim.
Last updated July 6, 2026. Case: The Lofts at Fillmore Condominium Association v. Reliance Commercial Construction, Inc.; 218 Ariz. 574, 190 P.3d 733 (2008); Arizona Supreme Court.
Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2008-08-19. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.
Scope note: This page covers the public Arizona Supreme Court ruling or opinion in The Lofts at Fillmore Condominium Association v. Reliance Commercial Construction, Inc.. The uploaded source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder; AI-generated review materials are not treated as court authority. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
A builder who is not also the vendor of the residence may still be sued for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability; lack of contractual privity does not bar the claim.
What the ruling says
Lofts at Fillmore is an important Arizona Supreme Court case for condominium associations pursuing construction-defect claims. The builder argued that it could not be sued for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability because it did not directly sell the units to the buyers and had no contractual privity with the association. The court rejected that argument. It held that the implied warranty arises from the construction of the home, not just from the sale transaction, and that lack of direct contractual privity does not bar the claim. In other words, a builder who actually performed the work can still be accountable even if a separate developer owned and sold the property. For condominium projects, that means an association may have a direct path against the builder whose work caused the defects instead of being limited to claims against the developer-vendor alone.
The court emphasized the policy behind the implied warranty doctrine: protect innocent residential purchasers and hold builders responsible for their work. Those purposes would be undermined if a builder could avoid liability merely because a separate entity held title and handled the sales.
The court also grounded the warranty in the act of building. Arizona’s earlier cases had already moved away from caveat emptor in new-home construction. Extending the warranty to the non-vendor builder fit that existing line of authority and prevented form-over-substance avoidance of liability.
This case is a powerful tool for Arizona condo associations and, by extension, many HOA construction-defect plaintiffs. It helps associations sue the party that actually did the defective work instead of being boxed into claims only against the original seller.
Developers, builders, and HOA counsel still cite Lofts in almost every Arizona construction-defect standing or privity fight. It remains a practical, high-value precedent for associations dealing with major repair claims.
Video overview of the case record
An AI-generated video overview of The Lofts at Fillmore Condominium Association v. Reliance Commercial Construction, Inc. (218 Ariz. 574, 190 P.3d 733 (2008)). Builder-vendors are not the only parties potentially liable for implied warranty construction defects. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.
Listen: audio deep dive on the case record
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in The Lofts at Fillmore Condominium Association v. Reliance Commercial Construction, Inc.. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.
Legal hooks
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Topic tags | board-governance, procedure |
Complete source-document index
This index contains 0 PDFs, 1 other source file from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.
Cap Opinion
Type: Decision or judgment
Public court opinion text source used to build this case-file page and to supply NotebookLM with a substantive source.
FAQ
What did The Lofts at Fillmore Condo Association v. Reliance Commercial Construction hold?
A builder who is not also the vendor of the residence may still be sued for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability; lack of contractual privity does not bar the claim.
Why does this case matter for Arizona HOA disputes?
This case is a powerful tool for Arizona condo associations and, by extension, many HOA construction-defect plaintiffs. It helps associations sue the party that actually did the defective work instead of being boxed into claims only against the original seller. Developers, builders, and HOA counsel still cite Lofts in almost every Arizona construction-defect standing or privity fight. It remains a practical, high-value precedent for associations dealing with major repair claims.
Does this page include a NotebookLM video?
Not yet. This source-backed authority page was created first so the case can be evaluated for Stage-2 media generation without forcing a source-less docket-minute record through NotebookLM.
Case Dossier
This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | 218 Ariz. 574, 190 P.3d 733 (2008) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Arizona Supreme Court |
| Decision / key date | August 19, 2008 |
| Judge / panel | Justice Andrew D. Hurwitz, Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor, Vice Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch, Justice Michael D. Ryan, Justice W. Scott Bales |
| Parties | A condominium association sued a builder for construction defects even though the builder was not the seller of the units. |
| Topics | Board GovernanceProcedure |
| Outcome / holding | A builder who is not also the vendor of the residence may still be sued for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability; lack of contractual privity does not bar the claim. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 1 other source file |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | No separate litigation roadmap table on this page |
| Video overview | The Lofts at Fillmore Condominium Association v. Reliance Commercial Construction, Inc. |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 3 questions |
| Featured download links | 0 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Lofts at Fillmore is an important Arizona Supreme Court case for condominium associations pursuing construction-defect claims. The builder argued that it could not be sued for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability because it did not directly sell the units to the buyers and had no contractual privity with the association. The court rejected that argument. It held that the implied warranty arises from the construction of the home, not just from the sale transaction, and that lack of direct contractual privity does not bar the claim. In other words, a builder who actually performed the work can still be accountable even if a separate developer owned and sold the property. For condominium projects, that means an association may have a direct path against the builder whose work caused the defects instead of being limited to claims against the developer-vendor alone.
The court emphasized the policy behind the implied warranty doctrine: protect innocent residential purchasers and hold builders responsible for their work. Those purposes would be undermined if a builder could avoid liability merely because a separate entity held title and handled the sales.
The court also grounded the warranty in the act of building. Arizona's earlier cases had already moved away from caveat emptor in new-home construction. Extending the warranty to the non-vendor builder fit that existing line of authority and prevented form-over-substance avoidance of liability.
This case is a powerful tool for Arizona condo associations and, by extension, many HOA construction-defect plaintiffs. It helps associations sue the party that actually did the defective work instead of being boxed into claims only against the original seller.
Developers, builders, and HOA counsel still cite Lofts in almost every Arizona construction-defect standing or privity fight. It remains a practical, high-value precedent for associations dealing with major repair claims.