Ohio’s House Bill 50 may not have dominated headlines, but for residential builders, remodelers, and litigators, it represents a meaningful recalibration of liability exposure.
The legislation shifts qualifying residential construction contracts out of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA), R.C. Chapter 1345, and into the Home Construction Service Suppliers Act (HCSSA), R.C. Chapter 4722. The enrolled bill text and legislative materials are available through the Ohio General Assembly’s site, and the governing statutory framework now sits within R.C. Chapter 4722.
On its surface, the change appears technical. In practice, it alters the remedial environment for certain residential projects exceeding $25,000 where the contractor carries the required level of liability insurance.
For years, residential repair and remodeling disputes were frequently evaluated under the CSPA, a statute designed to address unfair or deceptive consumer practices. One of its most consequential features is the potential for treble damages and attorney fee exposure in defined circumstances. That remedial structure has historically shaped both litigation strategy and settlement posture.
HB 50 narrows that pathway for qualifying construction contracts. Those agreements now fall under the HCSSA, which carries its own set of disclosure obligations, cancellation rights, and statutory remedies. The framework is more tailored to residential construction and less expansive than the CSPA’s broader consumer-protection model.
This does not insulate contractors from liability. It changes the analytical lens.
Under the HCSSA, compliance becomes central. The statute requires specific contract content, notice provisions, and disclosures. Disputes may turn less on whether conduct was “unfair or deceptive” in a generalized sense and more on whether the agreement satisfied statutory drafting requirements and whether the contractor adhered to defined obligations.
From a litigation standpoint, that shift matters. Early case framing will likely focus on whether the project meets the statutory thresholds that trigger Chapter 4722. Plaintiffs’ counsel must evaluate whether the contract falls within the HCSSA or remains subject to the CSPA. Defense strategy, in turn, may concentrate on demonstrating statutory compliance and narrowing the scope of available remedies.
The move also reflects a broader legislative trend: replacing one-size-fits-all consumer statutes with industry-specific regulatory schemes. Construction disputes often involve layered subcontractor relationships, staged payments, and performance disputes that do not always align neatly with general consumer-protection frameworks. By channeling qualifying projects into Chapter 4722, the legislature appears to be signaling that residential construction warrants its own remedial structure.
The practical implications extend beyond the courtroom. Builders and remodelers will need to revisit contract templates to ensure alignment with Chapter 4722’s requirements. Insurance thresholds, pricing structures and disclosure language take on renewed importance. Projects that hover near the statutory dollar threshold may invite additional scrutiny.
For litigators, the statute introduces new lines of argument in motions practice and case valuation. Treble-damage exposure under the CSPA has historically influenced risk modeling. Where Chapter 4722 governs, the calculus changes. Settlement leverage may shift accordingly.
HB 50 does not eliminate residential construction disputes in Ohio. It refines the framework through which they are evaluated and remedies are assessed. As with many statutory adjustments, the practical effects will become clearer as courts begin interpreting the revised provisions and applying them to live controversies.
For now, the most significant takeaway may be this: statutory context matters. In construction litigation, the governing chapter can shape not only the legal theory but also the economic stakes of the dispute.
0 Comments