When Products Fail in Extreme Weather: The New Liability Trap for Contractors
Austin Principal Shelly Masters wrote an article for the May edition of Construction News magazine examining how climate-driven stress is reshaping the landscape of construction disputes, particularly regarding product performance and liability. As extreme weather becomes more intense and more predictable, she explains how courts are increasingly focused on foreseeability and risk allocation when systems fail. The article highlights key pressure points, including contractor performance obligations, expanding warranty exposure, and the growing intersection with product liability claims, emphasizing the importance of intentional contract structuring, clear risk allocation, and disciplined project documentation from the outset.
Extreme heat, deep freezes, and record rainfall are no longer “once-in-a-generation” anomalies. They are becoming regular events that expose weak links in building envelopes, mechanical systems, and hybrid products that combine materials, adhesives, coatings, and other chemicals. The practical result is more disputes that look like ordinary construction-defect cases involving leaks, cracking, delamination, corrosion, or loss of performance, but are litigated through a climate-driven lens: what conditions were foreseeable, who owned the risk, and what did the contract and warranty actually promise.
Initial contract and plan/specification disputes are often framed around the owner, architect, and engineer teams. But when a building system fails under foreseeable climate stress, owners pivot to a contractor nonperformance theory. Bartush-Schnitzius Foods Co. v. Cimco Refrigeration illustrates the shift. The contractor sought payment, but because the refrigeration system could not maintain the contractually required temperatures, the court treated that deficiency as failure of a core performance obligation. The owner’s breach of performance claim became the focal point and undermined the contractor’s nonpayment claim. The contract made temperature performance the essential benefit of the bargain, and the contractor was responsible for delivering it.
Warranty language has become even more critical because product performance disputes increasingly get pushed back onto the contractor. Owners want long-term durability, but climate-driven failures often surface later as latent or progressive defects, such as water intrusion behind a façade, seal failures inside units, roof systems that appear sound until a heatwave, or materials that fatigue after repeated freeze-thaw cycles. Two themes matter most. First, long warranties can extend exposure far beyond what manufacturers intended, and they can bind the contractor if the contract language adopts or expands those promises. Christie v. Hartley Construction shows that an express long-term promise can override typical statute of repose protections. Second, warranty language does not necessarily eliminate exposure for latent failures that are not reasonably discoverable. Courts focus on what the parties promised and what was reasonable, and what is considered reasonable keeps expanding as extreme weather becomes more foreseeable.
HTRF Ventures v. Permasteelisa is a cautionary example for façade and high-performance building envelope contracts. There, the court read a design-build subcontract as imposing an independent obligation that effectively captured a ten-year performance requirement, beyond a simple pass-through of a manufacturer’s warranty. For contractors and subs, the takeaway is to separate workmanship/installation warranties from manufacturer product performance warranties in writing, avoid incorporation language that automatically expands the contractor’s warranty period to whatever appears in the specs, and make manufacturer warranty issuance a closeout deliverable directly to the owner. Otherwise, courts may treat the contractor as the guarantor when the product fails years later.
Climate stress also reshapes the product-liability conversation. Many states impose strict liability for defective and unreasonably dangerous products, and the core fight becomes whether the product was designed for its foreseeable climate. Bennett v. CMH Homes is a useful analog, where the court treated heat exposure as a foreseeable condition for exterior siding and allowed design-defect theories to proceed. Manufacturers will argue misuse or “conditions outside the intended range,” while claimants will point to marketing, typical exterior exposure, and modern weather data. As weather data changes, so does what is “foreseeable.”
Another problem area is whether a contractor becomes a “seller” when it supplies and installs a product, particularly on turnkey projects. Some states pull installation contractors into the distribution chain by statute, which changes early case strategy entirely. Prompt tender to the manufacturer, a clear record of who selected the product, and documentation that the installer did not control the alleged defect are key to defending contractor liability.
Insurance is often the real battleground once pleadings are filed. Coverage can turn on how causation is framed, such as a sudden event loss versus deterioration, workmanship, or maintenance, and exclusions and endorsements can eliminate coverage contractors assume they have. What defines an “occurrence” remains a nationwide split, although cases like Lamar Homes in Texas reflect the broader trend of recognizing an occurrence where unintended property damage results.
Scheduling delays are increasingly common due to climate-related events. Extreme rainfall, deep freezes, and heat stoppages drive delay claims, but contractors must still prove the event was unusually severe for the location and affected critical path activities, including long-lead materials. Weather benchmarking provisions tied to objective historic data are appearing more often because they reduce hindsight fights over what was “normal.” Following the contract’s notice and documentation requirements remains essential, especially when owners demand acceleration after excusable delay.
Worker safety is another area where “extreme” is becoming standard. Federal law increasingly supports heat illness prevention programs through OSHA, and some states impose more detailed temperature rules. Contractors should treat the most developed state-plan requirements as the benchmark for site plans, training, and documentation.
Climate stress is turning ordinary product performance into higher-stakes, multi-party litigation. The most practical risk controls are front-end: define climate assumptions in the contract, separate workmanship warranties from manufacturer performance warranties, align insurance and tender strategy between parties, and document submittals, product specifications, weather impacts, and maintenance records in a way that will survive a claim years later.
About the Author
Shelly Masters is an experienced trial attorney in our Austin office, representing clients in construction, commercial, employment, and product liability matters, with more than twenty years of experience handling complex, multi-party cases nationwide and resolving millions of dollars in disputes. She also advises and trains clients on risk management, drawing on current litigation trends to help prevent and navigate future challenges. If you have any questions, Shelly can be reached at 512-615-1139 or smasters@cokinoslaw.com.
About Cokinos | Young
Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.