How M/I Homes Uses This Clause
M/I Homes purchase agreements have been documented to include limitation of liability / no monetary damages provisions. New-construction purchase agreements typically limit the builder's monetary liability. M/I Homes' contracts may cap the builder's total liability or exclude recovery of consequential damages such as temporary housing costs, lost rental income, or diminished property value resulting from construction defects. Buyers should review whether the contract limits remedies to repair or replacement at the builder's discretion. This clause has been the subject of litigation, including Almodovar v. M/I Homes of Orlando, LLC (Stucco Defect).
This provision typically appears within the purchase agreement alongside other terms that may limit buyer remedies. Because M/I Homes operates across multiple states, the enforceability and practical impact of this clause varies depending on where the home is located.
M/I Homes's scale means contract templates are largely standardized across its operations. A clause identified in one market's contract is likely present in other markets' contracts, though local addenda may modify the terms.
Builder-Specific Details
Combined with Mandatory Arbitration
Arbitrators may be bound by the contractual damage limitation, further restricting buyer recovery.
Regional Contract Patterns
M/I Homes operates in a more focused geographic footprint. Contract terms may vary somewhat between markets, but documented patterns tend to be consistent across the builder's operating states.
Standard Form Contract
This clause appears in M/I Homes's standard purchase agreement, which is generally presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Buyers typically have limited ability to negotiate individual terms, though making the request in writing is still advisable.
Legal History
The following cases involve M/I Homes's use of this clause type.
Almodovar v. M/I Homes of Orlando, LLC (Stucco Defect)
Omar and Kristina Pulido Almodovar filed a complaint against M/I Homes of Orlando LLC alleging breach of contract and negligence, claiming damages from improper installation of the stucco system. The plaintiffs alleged M/I Homes failed to construct the home in accordance with the Florida Building Code and industry standards, and failed to adequately supervise construction. (Florida Record)
State-by-State Enforceability
Enforceability of this clause varies by state. The following reflects M/I Homes's operating states.
| State | Status | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Ohio | Uncertain | Ohio recognizes the implied warranty of habitability and has consumer protection statutes that may... |
| Indiana | Uncertain | Indiana recognizes the implied warranty of habitability and has a specific statute addressing... |
| Michigan | Uncertain | Michigan recognizes the implied warranty of habitability and fitness in new construction. The... |
| Illinois | Likely Unenforceable | Illinois has strong consumer protection statutes and recognizes the implied warranty of... |
| North Carolina | Uncertain | North Carolina recognizes the implied warranty of habitability for new construction and has... |
| South Carolina | Likely Unenforceable | South Carolina courts have found similar builder contract provisions unconscionable. In Smith v.... |
| Florida | Uncertain | Florida law imposes statutory protections for construction defect claims under Chapter 558 that may... |
| Texas | Uncertain | Texas courts generally enforce contractual liability limitations but subject them to... |
| Tennessee | Uncertain | Tennessee recognizes the implied warranty of habitability and has consumer protection statutes that... |
| Minnesota | Likely Unenforceable | Minnesota has strong statutory protections for homebuyers including specific new home warranty... |
| Virginia | Uncertain | Virginia generally enforces contractual liability limitations but recognizes the implied warranty of... |
| Pennsylvania | Uncertain | Pennsylvania recognizes the implied warranty of habitability and has strong consumer protection... |
| Maryland | Uncertain | Maryland recognizes the implied warranty of habitability and has consumer protection statutes that... |
| Georgia | Uncertain | Georgia law permits contractual limitation of liability but subjects such clauses to... |
| Colorado | Likely Unenforceable | Colorado's Construction Defect Action Reform Act (CDARA) and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007... |
Related Clauses in M/I Homes Contracts
This clause often works in combination with other provisions in M/I Homes's purchase agreements.
Arbitrators may be bound by the contractual damage limitation, further restricting buyer recovery.
Individual claims under the liability cap may be too small to pursue, and class aggregation is prohibited.
Together these clauses eliminate both the legal standard (habitability) and the remedy (damages).
The damage cap limits recovery even for items covered by the express warranty.
What Buyers Can Do
- Understand what damages are excluded. The limitation may cover consequential damages, incidental damages, or all monetary damages beyond the purchase price. The scope of the limitation matters significantly.
- Ask whether the limitation applies to construction defects. Some liability limitations are drafted broadly enough to encompass defect claims. Clarify whether defect-related damages are capped or excluded.
- Review the Almodovar case. The Almodovar v. M/I Homes of Orlando, LLC (Stucco Defect) ruling may be relevant to your situation. If you are buying a M/I Homes home in a state with similar legal protections, this precedent could affect the enforceability of this clause.
- Have the full contract scanned before signing. This clause is often one of several interconnected provisions in M/I Homes contracts that collectively limit buyer remedies. A contract scan can identify all of them.