WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 2106

Malpractice actions: architects, engineers, or surveyors.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Darsh Patel

AB 2106 clarifies and tightens the liability framework for design professionals (architects, engineers, surveyors) in malpractice lawsuits, including standards of care, damages, an

Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar.
#malpracticeactions #architects #engineers #orsurveyors
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 2106

Summary of AB 2106 (2025-2026) — California

Purpose and intent

AB 2106 addresses malpractice actions involving architects, engineers, or surveyors. The bill is intended to modify and clarify the procedural framework and substantive standards for professional liability lawsuits in California, particularly focusing on damages, timelines, and remedies available against design professionals. The sponsoring authors aim to refine how malpractice claims against these professionals are brought and adjudicated within the civil justice system.

Key provisions and changes (as reflected in the bill’s proposed iterations)

  • Liability framework for design professionals: Establishes or adjusts specific criteria for determining when architects, engineers, or surveyors may be held legally liable for professional negligence or malpractice in the performance of their duties.
  • Procedural adjustments: Likely includes changes to the filing, pleading, and procedural requirements for malpractice actions (e.g., limitations on claims, timing for discovery, or prerequisites before suit). The bill’s history shows multiple amendments and re-referrals, suggesting refinement of procedural steps.
  • Damages and limitations: Potentially introduces caps, limitations, or specific rules governing damages awarded in malpractice actions against design professionals, or creates safe harbors/controls to balance professional accountability with defense of professional practice.
  • Prerequisites to suit: May specify prerequisites such as expert affidavit requirements, notice provisions, or pre-suit conference requirements, aimed at screening frivolous claims and encouraging early settlement or resolution.
  • Standards of care and causation: Clarifies applicable standards of care for architects, engineers, and surveyors, and how causation must be proven in malpractice actions, including potential rebuttal standards or expert testimony requirements.
  • Alternative dispute resolution or cost-shifting: Could include provisions promoting mediation or cost shifting in professional liability cases, though specifics would depend on amendments.

Who would be affected

  • Design professionals: Architects, engineers, and surveyors practicing in California would be directly affected by any changes to liability standards, procedural requirements, and damages rules.
  • Clients and project owners: Individuals or entities commissioning design work could see changes in how malpractice claims are pursued, including potential impacts on claim timelines, evidence requirements, and recovery amounts.
  • Legal and construction industries: Plaintiffs’ attorneys, defense counsel, professional liability insurers, and construction project stakeholders may experience shifts in litigation strategy, pre-litigation procedures, and risk management practices.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Legislative path: The bill has progressed through multiple committee stages, with amendments and re-referrals indicating ongoing refinement before final votes. The most recent actions show passage in committee, approval on the Senate floor, and readiness for consent calendar consideration in the Assembly as of June 2026.
  • Key dates (from the bill history):
    • May 12, 2026: Read first time in the Senate; assigned to Rules, then RLS.
    • May 11, 2026: Passed the Assembly (third reading) with unanimous support (Ayes 73-0).
    • April–June 2026: Multiple committee amendments and readings (Judiciary and other committees), culminating in a Do Pass (Ayes 13-0) and referral to Consent Calendar.
    • June 25–24, 2026: Second reading and movement toward Consent Calendar in the Assembly.
  • Current status: As of the latest action history, AB 2106 advanced through committee and Senate action and is positioned for final Assembly consent/calendar consideration, with Darsh Patel as a co-sponsor.

Additional notes

  • The bill has undergone amendments proposed by the author and has been re-referred to the Judiciary Committee at least once, signaling ongoing refinement of its provisions.
  • Specific dollar amounts, percentage thresholds, or precise procedural steps are not included in the provided summary; the final text of the bill would detail any such numerical standards, caps, or timelines.

If you would like, I can extract the exact statutory changes from the latest enrolled version of AB 2106 and provide a line-by-line delta comparison to current law, along with potential practical implications for practitioners and stakeholders.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.