California C-46 contractor claims, roof damage liability, savings misrepresentation, AB 1070 disclosure violations, PPA disputes, and system underperformance
California leads the nation in residential solar adoption, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners financing systems through cash purchases, loans, leases, or power purchase agreements (PPAs). While solar can deliver significant savings and environmental benefits, installation defects, misrepresented performance claims, roof damage, and financing disputes create substantial legal and financial headaches.
When a solar contractor fails to meet industry standards, violates licensing requirements, damages your roof, or misrepresents system savings, you have remedies under California law—including contract rescission, damages for repair costs, lost savings, and in some cases recovery of attorney's fees.
| Dispute Type | Common Fact Patterns | Primary Legal Claims |
|---|---|---|
| Roof Damage | Leaks after installation, improper flashing, structural damage to trusses/rafters, voided roof warranty | Negligence, breach of contract, B&P § 7159 violations, recovery of repair costs + consequential damages |
| System Underperformance | System produces 30-50% less kWh than contractor projected; shading not disclosed; inverter undersized | Fraud/misrepresentation (Civ. Code § 1572), breach of express warranty, rescission + restitution |
| Savings Misrepresentation | Contractor claimed $200/mo savings but actual savings are $60/mo; unrealistic utility rate escalation assumptions | Fraud, CLRA violations (Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5)), UCL claims, damages = overpayments + lost opportunity cost |
| PPA/Lease Disputes | Unable to sell home due to PPA transfer issues; buyout price far exceeds system value; early termination fees | Contract unconscionability, breach of implied covenant of good faith, interference with property rights |
| AB 1070 Violations | No written disclosure document provided; cost per watt not disclosed; system specs inaccurate; performance estimates unsupported | B&P § 7164.5 violation = contract voidable, restitution remedy, potential CSLB disciplinary action |
| Unlicensed Activity | Electrical work performed by unlicensed workers; C-46 expired at time of contract; subcontractor had no C-10 license | B&P § 7031 = contract void, full refund regardless of work quality, no substantial compliance defense |
Business & Professions Code § 7164.5 (AB 1070): Effective January 1, 2017, requires solar contractors to provide a written "Solar Energy System Disclosure Document" before contract signing. Must include:
Failure to provide compliant disclosure = contract voidable at homeowner's option (B&P § 7164.5(c)).
CSLB Licensing Requirements: Solar installation requires a C-46 license. However, electrical work (conduit, panel upgrades, interconnection) requires a C-10 license. A C-46 alone cannot perform electrical work. Subcontracting to unlicensed electricians violates B&P § 7068 and voids the entire contract under § 7031.
California classifies solar contractors under the C-46 license, which authorizes the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. The C-46 classification was created in 2006 to professionalize the solar industry and ensure contractors meet minimum experience, insurance, and bonding requirements.
Before signing a solar contract, verify the contractor's license at www.cslb.ca.gov/OnlineServices/CheckLicenseII/CheckLicense.aspx. Look for:
Effective January 1, 2017, AB 1070 (codified at B&P § 7164.5) requires solar contractors to provide a standardized written disclosure document before contract execution. The disclosure must include:
| Disclosure Element | Required Information |
|---|---|
| System Specifications | System size in kilowatts DC, estimated annual production in kWh, panel manufacturer/model, inverter manufacturer/model |
| Cost Per Watt | Total system cost divided by DC watts (before incentives). Industry standard metric for comparing bids. |
| Total Cost | Cash price OR total financed amount over loan/PPA/lease term (including all interest, fees, and charges) |
| Estimated Savings | First-year dollar savings, methodology used (e.g., PVWatts simulation), and assumptions about utility rates, usage, and rate escalation |
| Warranty Terms | Equipment warranties (panel performance, inverter), workmanship warranty, roof penetration warranty |
| Interconnection Status | Whether net metering agreement is in place, utility approval status, any known delays |
The most common AB 1070 violation involves inflated performance estimates. Contractors use software like PVWatts, Aurora, or HelioScope to model production, but often manipulate assumptions:
If actual production is more than 10-15% below projected kWh in the first year (adjusted for weather), you have strong evidence of misrepresentation. Obtain a third-party solar engineer's analysis comparing contractor's model to actual performance data from your inverter monitoring.
Roof leaks after solar installation are among the most contentious disputes. Solar installers must penetrate the roof surface to mount racking, creating leak risks if flashing is improper or sealants fail.
Who Pays for Roof Repairs?
Demand full repair costs, interior damage (drywall, flooring, mold remediation), and cost to remove/reinstall solar panels during roofing repair. Many homeowners insurance policies exclude contractor workmanship, so you must pursue the solar contractor directly.
System produces significantly less electricity than contractor projected. Common causes:
| Underperformance Cause | Who Is Responsible | Remedy |
|---|---|---|
| Shading not disclosed | Contractor (failed to model shading or misrepresented site as "unshaded") | Rescission + restitution, or damages = difference between projected and actual savings |
| Undersized inverter | Contractor (design defect—inverter cannot convert all DC production to AC) | Replace inverter with properly sized model + lost production damages |
| Wrong roof orientation | Contractor (placed panels on north-facing roof or suboptimal orientation) | Relocation to optimal roof surface or rescission |
| Defective panels | Manufacturer (warranty claim) + Contractor (selected inferior product, misrepresented quality) | Panel replacement under warranty + damages for lost production and contractor misrepresentation |
| Weather variance | Neither (below-average solar irradiance year) | No remedy unless contractor guaranteed production (rare) |
Contractor promised "$250/month in savings" but actual savings are far less. Misrepresentation claims require proof the contractor made false statements about material facts:
Damages = difference between promised savings and actual savings over the contract term (20-25 years for PPA/lease). Courts may also award rescission + restitution if misrepresentation was intentional.
Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) and solar leases create long-term financial obligations (typically 20-25 years) and transfer/buyout issues:
Remedies depend on contract terms and whether you can prove unconscionability (Civ. Code § 1670.5), breach of implied covenant of good faith, or fraud in the inducement (contractor misrepresented buyout costs or transferability).
Even if system is functioning, failure to provide required disclosure is independently actionable:
File CSLB complaint in addition to civil demand—CSLB may suspend contractor's license and order restitution through administrative process.
Date: [Current Date]
To: [Solar Contractor Name]
[Contractor Address]
License No. C-46-XXXXXX
From: [Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Phone and Email]
RE: DEMAND FOR REPAIR AND DAMAGES – ROOF LEAK CAUSED BY SOLAR INSTALLATION AT [Property Address]
Dear [Contractor Name]:
I write to demand immediate repair of roof damage and compensation for losses caused by your defective solar panel installation at my home located at [Property Address]. On [Installation Date], your company installed a [X] kW solar system pursuant to contract dated [Contract Date].
The Problem: On or about [Leak Discovery Date], I discovered water intrusion in my [room location] ceiling, directly below the solar panel array on the [roof orientation] roof. The leak was not present before your installation and is located at or near the solar panel mounting hardware.
I immediately hired [Roofing Contractor Name], a licensed C-39 roofing contractor, to inspect and identify the source. Their inspection report dated [Inspection Date] (attached) conclusively found:
The roofer confirmed these defects are directly attributable to your installation and constitute violations of standard roofing practices and the California Residential Code (Chapter 9, Roof Assemblies).
Damages Incurred:
Legal Basis for Liability: You are liable under multiple theories:
DEMAND: Within 15 days of this letter, you must:
If you fail to respond or refuse to accept responsibility, I will pursue all available remedies, including filing a CSLB complaint (which may result in license suspension), filing a civil lawsuit for damages, and reporting the matter to my homeowners insurance (which may subrogate against you). I will also seek recovery of attorney's fees and costs under Civil Code § 1717.
This letter serves as notice under Business & Professions Code § 7159 and preserves all legal rights. Please contact me immediately at [phone/email] to arrange payment or repair.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Enclosures: Roof inspection report; photos of interior damage; repair estimates
Date: [Current Date]
To: [Solar Company Name]
[Company Address]
Attn: [Sales Rep Name] and Legal Department
From: [Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Phone and Email]
RE: DEMAND FOR RESCISSION AND RESTITUTION – FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION OF SOLAR SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Dear [Company Name]:
I demand rescission of the solar power purchase agreement (PPA) dated [PPA Date] and restitution of all payments made, based on your fraudulent misrepresentation of system performance and savings.
Background: On [Sales Date], your sales representative [Rep Name] presented a proposal claiming the [X] kW solar system would:
These projections were prominently featured in your written proposal (attached) and were the primary inducement for my decision to enter the PPA. You charged me $0.18/kWh for solar energy under the PPA, claiming this was far below my utility's $0.34/kWh rate.
The Reality: After 14 months of operation, the system has produced only 7,850 kWh—37% below your projection. My actual monthly savings average $82, not $240. I am paying the PPA rate of $0.18/kWh for underperforming solar while still buying significant grid power at utility rates.
Evidence of Misrepresentation: I hired [Solar Engineer Name], a professional engineer licensed in California (PE XXXXX), to analyze the system performance. Their report dated [Report Date] (attached) found:
Legal Basis for Rescission:
1. Fraud (Civil Code § 1572): You intentionally or recklessly misrepresented material facts—system production, shading conditions, and utility rates—with the intent to induce me into the PPA. I relied on these misrepresentations, and they were false. Fraud voids the contract and entitles me to rescission and restitution of all payments.
2. AB 1070 Violation (B&P § 7164.5): Your "Solar Energy System Disclosure Document" stated the system would produce 12,500 kWh/year. This estimate was materially inaccurate and unsupported by reasonable modeling. Under § 7164.5(c), I may void the contract and seek restitution.
3. CLRA (Civil Code § 1770(a)(5)): Your misrepresentation of system performance and savings constitutes an unfair and deceptive business practice under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. I am entitled to actual damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees.
DEMAND FOR RESCISSION: Within 20 days of this letter, you must:
Alternative Demand (if rescission refused): Pay damages of $[amount calculated as difference between promised savings and actual savings over 20-year term], plus cost to upgrade inverter and remove shading obstacles.
If you do not respond within 20 days, I will file a civil action seeking rescission, restitution, fraud damages, treble damages under the CLRA, and attorney's fees. I will also file complaints with the CSLB and the California Attorney General's Office regarding your deceptive sales practices.
This letter constitutes the 30-day pre-suit notice required under Civil Code § 1782 (CLRA). Do not contact me except through written correspondence to the address above.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Enclosures: Solar engineer performance analysis; PPA contract; sales proposal; 14 months of production data; utility bills
Date: [Current Date]
To: [Solar Company Name]
[Company Address]
Attn: Legal Department and Transfer Department
From: [Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Phone and Email]
RE: DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE PPA BUYOUT AT FAIR MARKET VALUE – INTERFERENCE WITH HOME SALE
Dear [Company Name]:
I demand that you immediately provide a fair market value buyout of the solar power purchase agreement (PPA) dated [PPA Date] affecting my property at [Property Address]. Your refusal to provide a reasonable buyout and your unconscionable transfer requirements are interfering with my sale of the home and causing substantial financial harm.
Background: I entered into a 25-year PPA with your company in [Year]. I am now selling my home, with an accepted offer and purchase agreement dated [Offer Date]. The sale is contingent upon buyer's approval of the PPA transfer or removal of the solar system.
The Problem: The buyer is willing to assume the PPA, but their mortgage lender, [Lender Name], has refused to approve the loan with the PPA lien in place. The lender considers the $0.21/kWh PPA rate (with 2.9% annual escalation) to be above-market and a credit risk. Additionally, your transfer requirements include:
As a result, the buyer has threatened to cancel the purchase agreement unless I remove the solar system or buy out the PPA. I requested a buyout quote from your company on [Request Date]. You quoted $[amount]—which is absurd given:
Legal Basis for Demand:
1. Unconscionability (Civil Code § 1670.5): The PPA's transfer terms and buyout provisions are procedurally and substantively unconscionable:
2. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith: The PPA impliedly includes a duty of good faith and fair dealing. By imposing excessive transfer fees, unreasonable credit requirements, and inflated buyout prices, you are frustrating my ability to sell my home—a foreseeable and fundamental property right.
3. Interference with Property Rights: The UCC-1 lien you filed creates a cloud on title that is impairing marketability. Your refusal to provide a fair buyout or streamline the transfer process constitutes intentional interference with my contractual relationship with the buyer.
DEMAND: Within 10 days of this letter, you must:
If you fail to provide a commercially reasonable resolution, I will:
My close of escrow is [Close Date], giving you limited time to act. I expect a written response within 10 days confirming one of the three options above.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Enclosures: PPA contract; purchase agreement; lender's denial letter; appraisal of solar system; buyout quote from your company
| Evidence Type | What to Collect | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Contract Documents | Sales proposal, PPA/lease/loan agreement, AB 1070 disclosure document, change orders, warranty documents | Establishes contractor's representations, performance guarantees, and disclosure compliance |
| License Verification | CSLB license lookup printout as of contract date; verify C-46 and C-10 (if applicable) were active | Proves licensing status—expired/suspended license voids contract under B&P § 7031 |
| Production Data | 12-24 months of inverter monitoring data (kWh produced per month); export from Enphase, SolarEdge, or Tesla app | Compares actual production to contractor's projections; proves underperformance |
| Utility Bills | 12 months pre-solar and 12+ months post-solar; shows actual usage, rates, and savings (or lack thereof) | Proves actual savings vs. contractor's claimed savings; exposes rate misrepresentation |
| Photos & Videos | Pre-installation roof condition; shading at different times of day; roof leaks; interior damage; defective workmanship | Establishes baseline condition, proves causation for leaks, documents defects |
| Third-Party Reports | Solar engineer performance analysis; roof inspection by C-39; inverter efficiency test; shading study | Expert opinions to prove defects, underperformance, or design negligence |
| Communications | Emails, texts, recorded sales calls (if legal); written representations about performance, savings, transferability | Proves what contractor promised vs. what was delivered; evidences fraud or misrepresentation |
For underperformance or design defect claims, hire a licensed Professional Engineer (PE) or NABCEP-certified solar professional to analyze your system. The expert should provide:
A strong expert report is often sufficient to force settlement without litigation. If the contractor disputes, the expert can testify at trial.
Contractors often conflate "solar production" with "savings." To prove savings misrepresentation, you must demonstrate:
In addition to civil demand, file a complaint with the Contractors State License Board:
CSLB complaints are free and can result in restitution without hiring an attorney. However, CSLB cannot award damages beyond direct economic loss (no pain and suffering, emotional distress, or punitive damages).
If demand letter and CSLB complaint fail, litigation options include:
| Forum | Claim Limit | Timeline | Pros & Cons |
|---|---|---|---|
| Small Claims | Up to $10,000 (or $5,000 if business plaintiff) | 1-3 months to hearing | Pros: No attorney needed, low filing fee ($30-75), fast. Cons: Claim limit may be insufficient; no discovery; limited appeal rights. |
| Limited Civil | $10,000 - $25,000 | 6-12 months to trial | Pros: Higher claim limit, formal discovery. Cons: Attorney recommended (not required); limited discovery compared to unlimited civil. |
| Unlimited Civil | Over $25,000 | 12-24+ months to trial | Pros: No claim limit, full discovery, jury trial available. Cons: Expensive (attorney's fees $10k-50k+), lengthy process. |
| JAMS/AAA Arbitration | Any amount (if contract requires arbitration) | 6-12 months to award | Pros: Faster than court, expert arbitrators. Cons: Expensive (arbitrator fees $5k-15k+), limited appeal rights, may favor repeat-player companies. |
California follows the "American Rule"—each party pays their own attorney's fees unless a statute or contract provides otherwise. Solar disputes may allow fee recovery under:
Because many solar contracts include attorney's fees clauses, and because CLRA provides fee recovery, these cases are often economically viable even for modest damages ($15k-50k).
Solar installation disputes involve complex technical issues (electrical engineering, roof construction, financial modeling) combined with intricate legal frameworks (licensing, consumer protection, contract law). While some homeowners successfully resolve disputes through demand letters and CSLB complaints, many cases require legal representation to achieve full recovery.
I represent California homeowners in solar installation disputes, roof damage claims, performance misrepresentation cases, and PPA/lease rescission actions. My practice focuses on holding contractors and solar companies accountable for defective work, fraud, and unfair business practices.
Solar contractors and PPA companies have in-house legal teams and insurance defense lawyers. They routinely deny valid claims, delay responses, and offer lowball settlements hoping homeowners will give up. An attorney levels the playing field by:
| Case Type | Typical Recovery | Fee Structure |
|---|---|---|
| Roof leak / structural damage | Repair costs ($5k-30k) + interior damage + diminished value | Contingency (33-40%) or hourly ($400-600/hr) |
| Underperformance / misrepresentation | Lost savings over PPA term ($20k-100k+) or rescission + restitution | Contingency (33-40%) |
| PPA rescission / unconscionability | Refund of all payments ($10k-40k) + system removal | Contingency or flat fee ($5k-15k) |
| AB 1070 disclosure violations | Contract voidability, restitution of payments, damages | Contingency or hybrid |
| Unlicensed contractor (B&P § 7031) | Full refund of all payments (regardless of work quality) | Contingency (25-33%) due to strong legal position |
Phase 1: Investigation & Demand (1-3 months): I gather evidence, retain experts if needed, and send a detailed demand letter. Many cases settle at this stage when contractors realize the strength of your claim and the cost of litigation.
Phase 2: CSLB Complaint (Parallel Track): I file a CSLB complaint, which may result in administrative mediation, arbitration, or license discipline. This puts additional pressure on the contractor.
Phase 3: Litigation (If Necessary, 6-18 months): If settlement fails, I file a civil complaint in superior court (or arbitration if required). Discovery includes depositions, document production, and expert reports. Most cases settle before trial, but I prepare every case for trial to maximize settlement leverage.
Phase 4: Trial or Arbitration: If settlement is not reached, I present your case to a judge, jury, or arbitrator, seeking full damages, rescission, and attorney's fees.
Don't let a solar contractor's broken promises, shoddy workmanship, or fraudulent sales tactics cost you tens of thousands of dollars. I have successfully recovered substantial settlements and verdicts for homeowners facing roof damage, underperformance, and PPA disputes.
Send me your solar contract, PPA/lease agreement, production data, and photos of any defects or damage. I'll evaluate your case and discuss representation options, including contingency fee arrangements where I only get paid if you recover money.
Contingency fees available. No recovery, no fee. Attorney's fees often recoverable from contractor under Civil Code § 1717 or CLRA, meaning the contractor pays your legal costs when you win.
Don't wait until it's too late. The longer you delay, the harder it becomes to gather evidence and prove damages. Contact me as soon as you discover defects, underperformance, or misrepresentation.
Solar installations involve significant investments—often $15,000 to $40,000 or more. When installations go wrong, the financial stakes are high. Common issues include systems that underperform promises, roof damage during installation, misleading financing terms, and companies that go out of business leaving warranties worthless.
Many states have specific solar consumer protection laws. Federal truth-in-lending laws apply to solar financing. The FTC's Cooling-Off Rule may give you three days to cancel door-to-door solar sales. Your state attorney general's consumer protection division handles solar company complaints.