How M/I Homes Uses This Clause
M/I Homes purchase agreements have been documented to include restrictive limited warranty exclusions provisions. M/I Homes guarantees homes are free from construction workmanship and material defects for one full year. Common issues such as exterior paint, drywall, trim, and finish defects must be reported within this 12-month window. BBB complaint records document homeowner disputes involving warranty claims for roof leaks, HVAC problems, plumbing issues, and drainage defects where coverage was contested or response times were disputed. This clause has been the subject of litigation, including Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC.
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 Habitability Waiver
If the habitability waiver holds, the limited warranty becomes the sole protection, and exclusions further narrow it.
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.
Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC
A townhome owners' association in Hanover Park, Illinois alleged breach of contract and breach of implied warranty of habitability against M/I Homes as the general contractor, developer, and seller, claiming that subcontractors used defective materials and faulty workmanship causing water intrusion and damage to the townhomes. In a landmark decision (2023 IL 129087), the Illinois Supreme Court addressed insurance coverage for construction defect claims, holding that property damage from faulty work can constitute an occurrence under standard CGL insurance policies.
Sanford v. M/I Homes of Tampa, LLC
James R. Sanford filed a construction defect lawsuit against M/I Homes of Tampa LLC on February 12, 2021. The case was disposed. (UniCourt case record)
Jones v. M/I Homes of Tampa, LLC
Raymond Jones filed a construction defect lawsuit against M/I Homes of Tampa LLC on April 26, 2021. The case was disposed. (UniCourt case record)
Jenkins v. M/I Homes of Orlando, LLC
Mario Thomas Jenkins filed a construction defect lawsuit against M/I Homes of Orlando, LLC on December 29, 2021. (UniCourt case record)
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)
Sandoval v. M/I Homes of Orlando, LLC (Stucco Defect)
Aurelio and Lourdes Sandoval filed a complaint against M/I Homes of Orlando LLC alleging breach of contract, claiming the defendant improperly installed the stucco system on their Winter Garden home. (Florida Record)
M/I Homes of Tampa, LLC v. Southeast Stucco, Inc.
M/I Homes of Tampa, LLC filed a construction defect lawsuit against its subcontractor Southeast Stucco Inc. on July 24, 2020. The case status was listed as pending. (UniCourt case record)
M/I Homes of Tampa, LLC v. MAB Stucco, Inc.
M/I Homes of Tampa, LLC filed a construction defect lawsuit against subcontractor MAB Stucco, Inc. on November 12, 2021. (UniCourt case 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 | Likely Enforceable | Express warranty exclusion clauses in Ohio new construction contracts are generally enforceable.... |
| Indiana | Likely Enforceable | Express warranty exclusion clauses in Indiana new construction contracts are generally enforceable.... |
| Michigan | Likely Enforceable | Express warranty exclusion clauses in Michigan new construction contracts are generally enforceable.... |
| Illinois | Uncertain | Warranty exclusion clauses in Illinois new construction contracts face notable constraints. Illinois... |
| North Carolina | Likely Enforceable | Express warranty exclusion clauses in North Carolina new construction contracts are generally... |
| South Carolina | Likely Enforceable | Express warranty exclusion clauses in South Carolina new construction contracts are generally... |
| Florida | Likely Enforceable | Express warranty exclusion clauses in Florida new construction contracts are generally enforceable.... |
| Texas | Likely Enforceable | Express warranty exclusion clauses in Texas new construction contracts are generally enforceable.... |
| Tennessee | Likely Enforceable | Express warranty exclusion clauses in Tennessee new construction contracts are generally... |
| Minnesota | Uncertain | Warranty exclusion clauses in Minnesota new construction contracts face significant statutory... |
| Virginia | Likely Enforceable | Express warranty exclusion clauses in Virginia new construction contracts are generally enforceable.... |
| Pennsylvania | Likely Enforceable | Express warranty exclusion clauses in Pennsylvania new construction contracts are generally... |
| Maryland | Uncertain | Warranty exclusion clauses in Maryland new construction contracts face notable constraints. The... |
| Georgia | Likely Enforceable | Express warranty exclusion clauses in Georgia new construction contracts are generally enforceable.... |
| Colorado | Uncertain | Warranty exclusion clauses in Colorado new construction contracts face notable constraints.... |
Related Clauses in M/I Homes Contracts
This clause often works in combination with other provisions in M/I Homes's purchase agreements.
If the habitability waiver holds, the limited warranty becomes the sole protection, and exclusions further narrow it.
Even warranty-covered items may be subject to the overall damage limitation.
Warranty exclusions narrow coverage while third-party administration adds procedural barriers to filing claims.
Substituted materials may not be covered under the same warranty terms as originally specified materials.
What Buyers Can Do
- Read the warranty exclusion list carefully. The exclusions may cover common issues like cosmetic defects, drainage problems, HVAC performance, and landscaping. Know what is not covered before you close.
- Understand warranty durations by category. Structural warranties may last 10 years, systems warranties 2 years, and cosmetic warranties just 1 year. Each category has different coverage and exclusions.
- Review the Acuity case. The Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC 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.