Window and Door Installation Defects: From Code Violations to Statutory Liability in Texas

Few building failures generate more litigation in Texas than water intrusion through windows and doors. Builders often try to frame these problems as “cosmetic” or “maintenance issues.” In reality, improper installation is a violation of the International Residential Code (IRC), the Texas Building Energy Performance Standards, and the Texas Residential Construction Liability Act (RCLA, Tex. Prop. Code §27).

For attorneys litigating construction defect claims, the critical point is this: window and door defects are not discretionary workmanship issues—they are enforceable statutory violations.

1. Flashing Installed Out of Sequence or Omitted

• Code: IRC R703.4 / R703.4.1 – requires flashing at all exterior window and door openings, integrated with the WRB, installed in shingle fashion to shed water outward.

• Violation: Installing head flashing first, skipping jamb flashing, or omitting sill flashing.

Case Law / Enforcement:

• In Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W.2d 554 (Tex. 1968), the Texas Supreme Court recognized an implied warranty of habitability in new home construction, establishing that builders must deliver homes that comply with basic building standards. Missing flashing violates this warranty.

• Courts consistently hold that failure to comply with mandatory code provisions is not excused by custom or builder judgment.

2. Absence of Sill Pans and Positive Drainage

• Code: IRC R703.4.1 – sill flashing required to direct water outward.

• Texas Health & Safety Code Ch. 388 – adopts the IECC; envelope must resist water intrusion.

• Violation: Rough openings without sill pans or with level/negative slope.

Case Law / Enforcement:

• In Lennar Homes v. Whiteley, 177 S.W.3d 751 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005), the court held that construction defects that permit water intrusion fall squarely within the scope of actionable RCLA claims.

• Builders cannot argue “maintenance” when the violation is a missing code-required flashing element.

3. Blocked or Absent Drainage Paths

• Code: IRC R703.4.1 – flashing and WRB must not trap water.

• IRC R613.1 – windows and doors must be installed in accordance with manufacturer instructions (which prohibit blocking factory weeps).

• Violation: Expanding foam or sealant blocking drainage cavities and weep holes.

Case Law / Enforcement:

• Gehan Homes, Ltd. v. Harrop, 2014 WL 6881632 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014) (mem. op.) confirmed that water intrusion caused by construction not meeting code and manufacturer standards supports RCLA claims.

• Blocking drainage is a latent defect; liability accrues even if damage surfaces years later.

4. Reliance on Caulking in Place of Flashing

• Code: IRC R703.4 / R703.4.1 – continuous flashing required; caulk cannot substitute.

• IRC R613.1 – mandates compliance with manufacturer’s published instructions.

• Violation: Builders using caulk or sealant as the primary defense against water intrusion.

Case Law / Enforcement:

• Courts have repeatedly rejected defenses based on “industry practice” when code language is mandatory. In Centex Homes v. Buecher, 95 S.W.3d 266 (Tex. 2002), the Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed that compliance with building codes and warranties is not optional.

5. Improper Leveling, Fastening, or Ignoring Manufacturer Instructions

• Code: IRC R613.1 – windows and doors shall be installed and flashed per manufacturer’s instructions.

• Violation: Out-of-square frames, incorrect fasteners, nail guns used where screws are required, or ignoring anchoring schedules.

Case Law / Enforcement:

• Manufacturer instructions are incorporated into law via IRC R613.1. Noncompliance is a statutory violation.

• Perry Homes v. Alwattari, 33 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000), illustrates that deviation from building standards—particularly where it leads to water intrusion—creates liability despite builder disclaimers.

Statutory Enforcement in Texas

• RCLA (Tex. Prop. Code §27.001(4)): Defines a “construction defect” as any failure to comply with building standards, including codes, manufacturer requirements, or express warranties.

• Tex. Health & Safety Code Ch. 388: Incorporates the 2015 IRC/IECC as the statewide energy code; improper installations that compromise the envelope are statutory violations.

• Implied Warranty (Humber v. Morton): All new homes in Texas must be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner and be habitable, which requires compliance with applicable codes.

Litigation Takeaways for Attorneys

1. Defects Are Not Cosmetic: Improper flashing, missing sill pans, blocked drainage, reliance on caulk, and improper fastening are direct statutory violations, not “maintenance problems.”

2. Codes Define Liability: IRC §§R703.4, R703.4.1, and R613.1 are binding law in Texas, not guidelines.

3. RCLA Is the Enforcement Tool: Once a code violation is established, liability under the RCLA is automatic—builder excuses about “industry custom” or “judgment” are irrelevant.

4. Case Law Reinforces Statutory Duty: From Humber through Lennar, Texas courts have consistently enforced builder accountability for code violations that permit water intrusion.

Bottom Line for Attorneys:When litigating window and door failures, always tie defects directly to the IRC and the RCLA. Builders who omit flashing, block drainage, or ignore manufacturer instructions have violated statutory duties. These violations are not defensible under “custom” or “warranty disclaimers.” The law in Texas is clear: noncompliant installations are construction defects that trigger liability.