Legal Question in Business Law in California

You have ten years to sue for latent defects in construction, although once you discover them you must sue within two years or before the ten years is up, whichever is sooner. So you certainly have the right to sue. You can sue not only for correcting the defects, but also for any damage caused by the defects, in this case the water damage from the leak. I question, however, whether it would be financially viable to sue. Do you really need to completely re-roof your house because of this issue? It sounds like it would be very hard to prove in court that 20 tiles not nailed down requires a total re-roof job. You are only going to recover in court the actual cost of fixing the defective work plus any damage to the rest of the structure from the defect. Then there is also the question of the financial viability of the roofing company. Are they still in business? Able to pay a judgment? You need to consider these issues in deciding whether it would be worth it to sue.

I certainly agree that it is necessary to act quickly; maybe have a construction-defects lawyer in your community estimate your recoverable damages, then write a demand letter including copies of the evidence of damage and see if there is a settlement offer. The statutes of limitations, however, pertain to the date a lawsuit is filed, not when a claim is presented, so don't let too much time elapse in pursuing a settlement. Sometimes settlements are more easily achieved when a suit is pending, rather than a mere threat. Also, note whether your contracts require arbitration of disputes and/or whether there is an attorney-fee clause.