An Architect’s Liability for Construction or Renovation Defects

It often happens that a contractor or property owner hires a qualified architect to design and renovate a new store to be opened in Paris, or to build a house, but that numerous defects and flaws are discovered after completion, or that the budget and duration of the work significantly exceed the architect’s initial estimates, leading to disputes.

An architect with HMONP (Authorization to Act as Project Manager in Their Own Name) and registered with the Order of Architects is qualified to serve as the sole project manager.

With regard to construction or renovation defects, the legal framework governing the procedures to be followed and the burden of proof required for the project owner to hold the architect-project manager liable and obtain damages varies depending on when the defects were discovered, as well as their nature and severity.

I. The Legal Basis for the Architect’s Liability

A. Special Liability

Articles 1792 et seq. of the Civil Code establish the specific liability regime for builders, and Article 1792-1 of the same code provides that the architect is deemed to be the builder of the structure.

Consequently, the following provisions of the Civil Code apply to the architect:

Under Article 1792-5, these provisions are matters of public policy, and any contractual clause intended to exclude or limit the liability provided for in these provisions is deemed null and void. Consequently, if the project management contract entered into with the architect provides for the architect’s exemption from liability in the event of defective workmanship, the client may hold the architect liable in court.

While interior renovation work on an apartment in an older building does not constitute the construction of a “structure” within the meaning of Articles 1792 et seq. of the Civil Code, major renovation work on an entire building—which transforms the structure through the addition of materials and the use of construction techniques, particularly when it affects the building envelope, the roof, the structure, or the waterproofing, fall within the scope of these provisions.

a) Ten-Year Warranty (Articles 1792 and 1792-2 of the Civil Code)

The architect may be held liable as of right for 10 years from the date of acceptance of the work for defects that compromise the soundness of the structure or render it unfit for its intended purpose (Article 1792), or those affecting the structural integrity of a structure’s fixtures and fittings when these are inseparably integrated with the utility systems, foundations, structural framework, exterior walls, or roof (Article 1792-2).
Examples of defects or damage covered by the ten-year warranty:

· Foundations that are poorly adapted to the soil
· Through-cracks or roof leaks
· Cracks or collapse of a load-bearing wall or slab settlement
· Widespread cosmetic defects affecting a luxury villa
· Fogging of windows, interfering with normal occupancy of the building by trapping moisture and obstructing views and light
· Defective plumbing that caused significant flooding
· A defect in a hotel’s air conditioning system that lacks sufficient capacity to function normally.

However, defects that are purely cosmetic in nature and do not render the building unfit for its intended use are not covered by the ten-year warranty.

Furthermore, the ten-year warranty does not apply to defects that were the subject of reservations at the time of acceptance; such defects are covered by the warranty of perfect completion referred to in Article 1792-6, which is the sole responsibility of the contractor who performed the defective work.

Burden of Proof

When the defects or damage observed are of the nature and severity of those referred to in Articles 1792 et seq. of the Civil Code, the architect is automatically liable to the project owner without it being necessary for such defects or damage to result from the architect’s fault.

The architect may exonorate himself from liability only by proving that the defects or damage stem from an external cause, such as force majeure or the act of a third party (Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, June 8, 2023, No. 21-25.822) or by establishing that they were not involved at the time the defect or damage occurred (Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, May 14, 2020, No. 19-12.988). The architect may be held liable when the defects or damage result exclusively from construction defects attributable to the contractors (Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, June 27, 2001, No. 00-12.130).

b) Two-Year Warranty (Article 1792-3 of the Civil Code)

For a period of 2 years from the date of acceptance of the work, the architect is required to repair or replace any building equipment that has a construction defect likely to impair its proper functioning, provided that such equipment can be removed or replaced.
Examples of defects covered by the two-year warranty:

· Malfunction of the heating, air conditioning, and ventilation systems, as well as piping not integrated into the building’s structural framework.

However, inert fixtures not intended to function, such as paint, tile, or carpeting, are not covered by the two-year warranty under Article 1792-3 of the Civil Code (Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, April 27, 2000, No. 98-15.970).

B. Liability Under General Law

When the defects or damage observed do not meet the criteria for the application of Articles 1792 et seq. of the Civil Code, the claim for compensation for the harm suffered by the building owner against the architect must be based on liability under general law.

a) Contractual Liability (Article 1231-1 of the Civil Code)

A claim for damages relating to the following types of damage must be based on the provisions of the Civil Code concerning contractual liability:

· Damage discovered prior to acceptance of the work (e.g., failure to verify the conformity of the work, inadequate supervision of the construction site)
· Defects noted at the time of acceptance: even if these defects fall under the warranty of satisfactory completion referred to in Article 1792-6, the contractor’s and architect’s contractual liability remains in effect until the reservations are lifted (Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, December 13, 1995, No. 92-11.637), and the project owner may hold the contractor and architect liable to obtain compensation for the loss when further intervention by the contractor to repair the defects or damage is not desired.
· Damage that appears after acceptance of the work and that does not fall within the scope of the ten-year warranty or the warranty of satisfactory performance (damage of insufficient severity, such as purely aesthetic defects, or non-conformities that do not affect either the structural integrity of the work or its intended use) (Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, November 7, 2024, No. 23-12.315)
· Economic damages resulting from a delay in the performance of the contractor’s duties
· Damages resulting from a breach of the duty to inform and advise (e.g., poor advice regarding the selection of contractors, an error in the project’s budget estimate (see below), or failure to comply with the terms of a building permit) (Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, June 29, 2017, No. 16-14.264)

According to case law, a tolerance margin of 10% is permitted between the architect’s initial estimate and the actual cost of the work. If the discrepancy exceeds 10%, the architect may be held contractually liable in the event of a failure to provide adequate information (Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, September 29, 2015, No. 23-16780; February 13, 2025, No. 23-16780).

Burden of Proof

In the event of construction or renovation defects resulting from poor workmanship, failure to follow best practices, or the use of unsuitable materials, the project owner may hold the architect liable by demonstrating the architect’s fault in causing the damage and the causal link between the fault and the damage. The burden of proof rests with the client because the architect is subject to an obligation of means in his or her general project management role.

Conversely, when the architect’s fault consists of a breach of his duty to advise and inform (for example, a failure to provide information on the choice of materials or a wrongful underestimation of the projected budget)—that is, a breach of an obligation of result—the burden of proof is reversed, and it is up to the architect to prove that he has fulfilled his obligation.

Statute of Limitations

For damages discovered before the acceptance of the work, a contractual liability claim against the architect is subject to a 5-year statute of limitations, beginning on the day the project owner became aware of the facts enabling them to bring the claim—that is, from the date the damage became apparent or was revealed (Article 2224 of the Civil Code).

For damages discovered after acceptance of the work, a claim for contractual liability against the architect is subject to a 10-year statute of limitations beginning on the date of acceptance of the work (Article 1792-4-3 of the Civil Code).

b) Tort Liability (Articles 1240 and 1241 of the Civil Code)

The architect may be held liable in tort by the project owner when there is no contractual relationship between them (such as when the architect is a subcontractor to the general contractor). Such a claim is subject to the 5-year statute of limitations under general law (Article 2224 of the Civil Code).

II. Implementation of the Architect’s Liability

While construction-related damages can be very costly, there are instances where, even when the project owner prevails in a damages suit against the architect, the judgment cannot be enforced if the architect lacks the means to compensate the project owner. For this reason, in liability proceedings against an architect, the lawsuit must be filed against the insurance company with which the architect is insured.

The law requires architects to carry insurance covering both the architect’s ten-year warranty and professional liability. Since proof of this mandatory insurance is always attached to the project management contract, the project owner can identify the insurance company with which the architect is insured and, instead of filing a claim against the architect, may file a claim directly against the architect’s insurance company, pursuant to Article L124-3 of the Insurance Code.

For defects or damage covered by the ten-year warranty, the project owner does not need to prove the architect’s negligence to invoke the warranty. The client’s attorney must establish, in the complaint, that the defects or damage fall within the scope of Articles 1792 et seq. of the Civil Code, and that these defects or damage fall within the architect’s sphere of responsibility as defined by the project management contract entered into with the architect.

Conversely, for defects or damage not covered by the ten-year warranty, the client’s attorney must present arguments establishing a causal link between the architect’s negligence during the course of their work and the occurrence of the defects or damage.

In all cases, litigation involving construction law requires the use of an expert assessment—whether amicable or judicial—to determine the legal classification of the defects and identify their cause.

An amicable expert assessment has the advantage of being quick and less expensive. However, the expert may lack impartiality, and the conclusions of their report are not binding on the parties.

In contrast, a judicial expert assessment—which is ordered by the judge presiding over summary proceedings pursuant to Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure—is conducted by an independent expert, and the conclusions of the expert report are binding on all parties. In the event that the expert report establishes the architect’s liability for the damage, the client’s attorney sets forth his or her arguments in the complaint on the merits, based on the conclusions of the expert report.

The request for an expert assessment is filed with the presiding judge of the judicial court where the building is located (Article 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Service of the summons in summary proceedings on the architect and project manager suspends the running of the statute of limitations.