Spray Foam Insulation in Texas New Homes: A Lawsuit Waiting to Happen

Spray polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation is aggressively marketed by Texas builders as a premium “green” upgrade. Brochures promise high R-values per inch, reduced utility bills, and airtight building envelopes that easily meet International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) requirements. In practice, however, SPF is one of the most litigation-prone materials currently used in Texas residential construction. Unlike brick veneer cracks or drywall nail pops, SPF failures are rarely cosmetic; they implicate habitability, health, and life safety.

And because Texas has no licensing or oversight regime for SPF contractors, the litigation landscape is especially favorable for plaintiffs. Builders use SPF as a low-cost path to IECC compliance, while leaving homeowners exposed to hidden defects that cannot be corrected without invasive demolition.

Why SPF Is a Litigation Magnet

SPF is not inherently defective. Its problem is that it is unforgiving. The chemistry requires exact substrate temperature, precise A/B ratios, controlled spray thickness, and adequate cure times. A deviation in any variable can lead to:

• Toxic off-gassing and persistent odors from incomplete chemical reactions.

• Moisture entrapment against roof decking or wall sheathing, causing concealed rot.

• Water absorption in open-cell foam, leading to microbial growth.

• Fire code violations where builders fail to cover foam with required thermal or ignition barriers (IRC §R316.5.3, §R316.5.4).

Unlike fiberglass batts, SPF cannot be “pulled and replaced.” Once sprayed, it is a permanent installation. That permanence magnifies damages in litigation because remediation almost always involves demolition of finishes, sheathing, or roof decking.

The Texas Factor: No Oversight, No Accountability

Unlike licensed trades such as electrical or plumbing, SPF installation in Texas is wholly unregulated. No license, exam, or continuing education is required. Any individual with a spray rig can present themselves as a “professional installer.”

The building codes are unambiguous about compliance:

• IRC §R316.7 – installation must comply with manufacturer’s instructions.

• IRC §106.1.2 – instructions must be on-site for inspector verification.

• IECC §R303.2 / IRC §N1101.12 – insulation must be installed per manufacturer specifications.

But municipal inspectors generally lack training in SPF chemistry and typically limit their review to thickness and barrier coverage. Builders exploit this gap to achieve “paper compliance” with the 2021 IECC while leaving the homeowner with defects.

Litigation Implications

SPF defect cases in Texas tend to fall into three recurring categories:

1. Toxic Exposure Claims

Occupants develop respiratory irritation, headaches, or complain of chemical odors. These claims usually require industrial hygiene testing, environmental sampling, and sometimes medical testimony.

2. Structural Failure Claims

Hidden rot in sheathing or framing due to trapped moisture often arises years after construction. These claims depend on destructive testing and structural engineering analysis.

3. Code Violation Claims

Often the most straightforward. Missing ignition barriers, absent manufacturer instructions, or deviations from IECC installation mandates are objective code violations that can be proven with documents and photos alone.

Statutory Overlay: Texas Property Code Chapter 27 (RCLA)

Texas’ Residential Construction Liability Act (RCLA), Property Code Chapter 27, governs homeowner remedies against builders for construction defects. SPF defects typically trigger multiple RCLA avenues:

• Latent Defects: Off-gassing, hidden moisture, or microbial growth qualify as latent conditions not reasonably discoverable at closing. These extend the builder’s liability exposure.

• Code Violations: Under §27.003(a)(1), failure to construct in compliance with applicable building codes (IRC, IECC) constitutes a compensable defect. Missing ignition barriers or lack of manufacturer instructions are direct statutory violations.

• Warranty Overlay: Most builder warranties disclaim “cosmetic” items but cannot disclaim statutory duties to construct in compliance with codes. Courts have consistently held that violations of adopted codes fall outside warranty disclaimers.

• Notice and Opportunity: Homeowners must give builders 60-day written notice of the defect (§27.004). For attorneys, this means a carefully drafted RCLA notice letter is critical — citing specific code sections and manufacturer instructions will frame the defect as objectively provable rather than subjective dissatisfaction.

SPF’s permanence also raises cost-to-repair implications. Since foam cannot be surgically removed, RCLA damages often include demolition and replacement of entire roof or wall assemblies — a scope far exceeding what many builders expect when they invoke warranty exclusions.

Conclusion: A Red Flag for Litigators

Spray foam insulation is marketed as high-tech and energy efficient. In the Texas regulatory vacuum, it is more often a liability trap. Builders use SPF as a shortcut to IECC compliance, while homeowners inherit homes that may be toxic, structurally compromised, and in open violation of building codes.

For attorneys, SPF should always be a red-flag inquiry in construction defect, toxic tort, or breach of warranty litigation. Its permanent nature, susceptibility to installation error, and lack of installer regulation make it uniquely prone to generating claims under both the building codes and the RCLA.

When reviewing a Texas defect case, the presence of SPF insulation should trigger immediate questions: Was it installed per manufacturer instructions? Were ignition barriers provided? Were instructions present on site? Was the homeowner provided documentation? If the answers are no, the path to liability is already paved.