The Near Unconscionability of the Texas Residential Construction Liability Act

The Texas Residential Construction Liability Act (RCLA) was supposed to strike a balance between protecting homeowners and shielding builders from excessive liability. In practice, it often tilts heavily in favor of builders, leaving homeowners with fewer rights and weaker remedies than they’d have in almost any other area of consumer law.

That’s not balance — that’s near unconscionability.

What the RCLA Does — and Doesn’t Do

The RCLA, enacted in 1989, outlines the process homeowners must follow when they believe their home has construction defects. It requires homeowners to notify the builder before suing, gives builders the right to inspect and make an offer to repair, and limits damages to “actual damages” — no punitive damages, no mental anguish, and strict limits on attorney’s fees.

On its face, it looks like a fair framework to reduce unnecessary lawsuits and encourage resolution. But in real life, it often serves as a shield for negligent builders and a wall between homeowners and justice.

The Power Imbalance

Most homeowners go into the homebuilding process without legal representation. Builders, on the other hand, often have teams of lawyers and adjusters ready to deflect responsibility and delay action. By forcing homeowners into a pre-litigation process where the builder controls the timeline, the RCLA magnifies this imbalance.

Builders can make lowball offers to repair defects they caused — offers that homeowners are pressured to accept under the threat of reduced damages or court dismissal. These offers don’t even have to fully fix the problem. They just need to be reasonable. And what counts as reasonable is often in the eye of a builder-friendly court.

The Damage Limits

Perhaps the most glaring issue is the cap on damages. Homeowners can't recover anything beyond “economic damages” — no compensation for mental anguish, no statutory damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), and very limited recovery of attorney’s fees.

This is construction. Defects aren't just financial problems. They affect safety, peace of mind, and quality of life. A family dealing with mold, leaks, or structural issues may be living in a dangerous or unhealthy home, with no recourse beyond out-of-pocket repair costs.

The RCLA strips away the kind of legal leverage that often drives bad actors to settle or change their practices. Without the threat of punitive damages or a DTPA claim, many homeowners are left to fight a giant with a foam sword.

Courts Uphold It — But That Doesn’t Make It Fair

Legally, the RCLA has survived challenges. Courts have ruled that it doesn’t violate constitutional rights. But legality isn’t the same as fairness. What the RCLA represents is a codified advantage for builders — many of whom helped shape the law in the first place — at the expense of regular people who just want a livable home.

It raises the question: When a law systematically favors one side and limits access to meaningful remedies, how close does it come to being unconscionable?

A Call for Reform

The RCLA isn’t untouchable. Lawmakers could strengthen it by allowing broader damages, ensuring neutral inspections, or tying “reasonable repair offers” to actual third-party standards. Right now, it functions less like consumer protection and more like an industry privilege.

Homeowners deserve better. The law shouldn’t punish people for buying homes in good faith. It shouldn’t give builders the tools to delay, deny, and deflect. And it definitely shouldn’t take away the few remedies consumers have when everything else has failed.

Until that changes, the RCLA remains what it has long been: a one-sided law that stops just short of being unconscionable — but only just.