DOCSLIB.ORG

Avoiding the Statute of Repose

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Avoiding the Statute of Repose AVOIDING THE STATUTE OF REPOSE COZEN AND O'CONNOR Atlanta, GA Charlotte, NC Cherry Hill, NJ Chicago, IL Dallas, TX Denver, CO Las Vegas, NV London, England Los Angeles, CA New York, NY Newark, NJ Philadelphia, PA San Diego, CA San Francisco, CA Seattle, WA Trenton, NJ Washington, D.C. W. Conshohocken, PA Wilmington, DE Wichita, KS The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of any current or former client of Cozen and O'Connor. These materials are not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should not act or rely on this material without seeking specific legal advice on matters which concern them. Copyright (c) 1999 Cozen and O'Connor ALL RIGHTS RESERVED I. Introduction Beginning in the 1950’s, in response to increased numbers of civil actions filed to recover damages for personal injuries, the builders’ and architects’ lobby and insurance carriers mounted a successful campaign throughout the United States to have state legislatures adopt statutes of repose. These statutes prevent persons from bringing actions for injuries caused by improvements to real property after a certain period of time has passed from the date of construction of the improvement. More recently, in conjunction with the “tort reform” movement, an increasing number of states (24 to date) have adopted statues of repose for products liability and cases. The purpose of this presentation is to focus on the issues presented in cases where a statute of repose may apply for the purpose of determining whether a statute of repose can be avoided in a particular case or jurisdiction. II. Statute of Repose For Improvements To Real Property A. Determining Whether the Product is “Improvement to Real Property” As a general rule, the standard for determining whether a particular defective article is a “fixture” or “improvement to real property” is similar from state to state and is driven by the facts. In Pennsylvania, a four-part test is set forth in Noll v. Harrisburg Area YMCA, 643 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1994). In Noll, the issue was whether a manufacturer of diving blocks which were attached to the edge of a pool was protected by the statute of repose. Initially, the court noted that the determination of whether an item is a fixture depends upon the “objective intent of the parties” to permanently attach the product to the realestate and not the “subjective intent” of the party at the time that the product is installed. 2 The factors which must be considered in determining whether an article is a fixture include the following: 1) the manner in which the object is attached to the real property; 2) how long the object has been attached to the real property; 3) whether the object is essential to the use of the real property; and 4) whether the conduct of the parties involved evidenced an intent to permanently attach the article. Id at p. 88. In Noll , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that the diving blocks did not constitute an improvement to real property because they could easily be screwed and unscrewed without the use of any tools, removing the blocks was often done by persons who used the pool, the blocks were advertised as easily removable, and removing the starting blocks did not cause any damage to the pool. In contrast to the holding in Noll, in New Jersey, a diving block which was not moved by the owner after it was attached was determined to be an “improvement to real property” and was subject to the statute of repose for improvements to real property. Lewis v. Hopewell Valley Racquet Club, 269 N.J. Super 71, 634 A. 2d 568 (A.D. 1993). Obviously, the analysis of whether a particular article is an improvement to real property is extremely fact intensive and it is the job of the attorneys to develop those facts in the case which relate to the factors set for above and which tend to show that the article is not a fixture or improvement to real property. The most recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on the issue of whether a particular article is an improvement to real property is Vargo v. Koppers Company, Inc., 552 Pa. 371, 715 A. 2d 423. In Vargo, the machine at issue was a door machine which operated alongside a series of coke ovens at a steel plant. The function of the machine was to run along a 3 rail system in front of the coke ovens and to remove and replace coke oven doors, each of which weighed five tons. The door machines were 30 feet long, 15 to 16 feet high, and 7 to 8 feet wide. The equipment was installed at the plant in the 1950’s. On September 14, 1988, an accident occurred which resulted in the death of an employee who was operating the machine. In determining whether this machine was a fixture, the Superior Court focused on the sheer size of the machine, the fact that the rails upon which the machine was run were bolted to the ground, and that the function of the machine was essential to the operation of the plant. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of this Superior Court. In its opinion, the court noted that the door machine was one of several at the plant that moved around on the rail system and that a spare door machine was maintained in case one of the operational door machines had to be removed for service or maintenance. Thus, the court concluded that while some minimal number of door machines were essential to the operation of the plant, any individual door machine could be removed without disrupting the use of the real property. Based upon these facts, the Supreme Court concluded that the door machine did not constitute an improvement to real property. For a similar case in New Jersey, see McCalla v. Harnischfeger Corp., 215 N.J. Super. 160, 521 A.2d 851 (A.D. 1987) (An overhead crane installed in a building which could conceivably be removed and put to other uses was not an improvement to real property.) The Vargo case demonstrates that size is not dispositive on the issue of whether an item is a fixture, and that the statute of repose may be avoided if the plaintiff can focus on a particular movable or interchangeable part of a machine or system. B. Potential Defendants Who Are Not Protected by the Statute of Repose. Where a particular defective article is an improvement to real property, the next step is to look back to the statue to see if there is some defendant who is not protected by the statute. In 4 some states, the owner of the property at the time of the construction is explicitly not protected by the statute. Also, in many states, including Pennsylvania, manufacturers of articles who do not directly participate in the design or construction on the property are not protected by the Statute of repose. The leading case in Pennsylvania on whether a manufacturer is protected by the statute of repose is McConnaughey v. Building Components, Inc., 637 A. 2d. 1331 (Pa. 1994). McConnaughey involves a roof collapse in a barn causing substantial property damage including the death of 37 cows. The accident occurred in 1986 and the barn was constructed in 1970. The plaintiff sued two defendants, the manufacturer of prefabricated wooden roof trusses, as well as the manufacturer of metal gusset plates which were used to connect the individual wooden beams at the stress points of the trusses. Because the accident occurred 16 years after the date of construction, each of these defendants filed motions for summary judgment claiming that they were protected by Pennsylvania’s statute of repose. Motions were granted by the trial court as to each defendant and affirmed by the Superior Court. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that manufacturers and suppliers of component parts who are not involved in the design, planning, supervision, construction, supervision or observation of the construction are not protected by the Statute of repose: “We find that the clear an unambiguous language of the statute of repose establishes that a manufacturer who does nothing other than supply a defective product which later is incorporated into an improvement to real property by others is not within the purview of the statute. While roof trusses may be considered improvements to real property according to the definition of fixtures, the statute only protects the acts of those persons involved in the design, planning, supervision, construction, or observation of the construction of an improvement to real property itself. When a manufacturer does nothing more than supply the component products for an improvement to real property, the manufacturer is not protected by the statute. The fact that a manufacturer designs 5 and plans the component products which later are incorporated into an improvement to real property is irrelevant under the statute. The Pennsylvania statute of repose was not intended to apply to manufacturers and suppliers of products but only to the kinds of economic actors who perform acts of “individual expertise” akin to those commonly thought to be performed by builders. Id. at 1334. Based upon this holding, the manufacturer of the prefabricated roof trusses and the manufacture of the metal plates incorporated in the trusses, were not protected by the statute of repose. Consistent with the court’s opinion in McConnaughey, in Ferricks v. Ryan Homes, 578 A. 2d. 441 (Pa. Super. 1990), the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that a supplier of allegedly defective plywood to a construction project was not protected by the statute of repose.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CERCLA State Statutes of Repose
    Latham & Watkins Environmental Litigation Practice June 20, 2014 | Number 1698 Supreme Court Ruling Resolves Conflict on State Statutes of Repose US Supreme Court rules CERCLA Section 309 does not preempt state statutes of repose. Federal causes of action remain unaffected. Last week, in a 7-2 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger that Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 3091 does not preempt state statutes of repose. 2 The Court’s decision resolves a split between the Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Circuits regarding the preemptive effect of Section 309 on state statutes of repose.3 Case History In Waldburger, CTS Corporation, the former owner of an electronics and electronics parts plant in North Carolina, faced state nuisance claims brought by the property’s current owners and neighboring landowners based, in part, on allegations that CTS Corporation contaminated the groundwater with chlorinated solvents. CTS Corporation operated at the site from 1959 to 1985 and sold its former property in 1987. In 2009, EPA allegedly notified Plaintiffs that nearby well water was contaminated. In 2011, 24 years after CTS Corporation sold its North Carolina property, Plaintiffs filed suit seeking “reclamation” of “toxic chemical contaminants,” “remediation of the environmental harm caused” by the contaminants, and monetary damages for “all the losses and damages they have suffered...and will suffer in the future.” 4 The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims based on North Carolina’s statute of repose, 5 which provides a 10-year filing deadline “from the last act or omission of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action.”6 The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court on the basis of Section 309 preemption.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 2:12-Cv-00668-KRG Document 131 Filed 03/18/15 Page 1 of 27
    Case 2:12-cv-00668-KRG Document 131 Filed 03/18/15 Page 1 of 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HOWARD KEPHART and DIANE ) KEPHART, ) Civil Action No. 2:12-668 ) Plaintiffs, ) Judge Kim R. Gibson ) v. ) ) ABB, INC., ) ) Defendant; Third-Party ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE BABCOCK & WILCOX ) COMPANY, et al., ) ) Third-Party Defendants ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT I. Synopsis Before the Court in this matter are three motions: (1) a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 94) filed by Third-Party Defendants Babcock & Wilcox Company, Babcock & Wilcox Investment Company, and Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group (“B & W” or “B & W Defendants”); (2) a motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 108) filed by Defendant/ Third-Party Plaintiff ABB, Inc. (“ABB”); and (3) a motion for consolidation of oral argument (ECF No. 111) filed by Defendant/ Third-Party Plaintiff ABB, Inc. The primary issue argued by the parties is whether Pennsylvania’s statute of repose, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5536, provides protection from liability in this action to Third-Party Defendants B & W and to Defendant ABB. Based on the record before the Court and after Case 2:12-cv-00668-KRG Document 131 Filed 03/18/15 Page 2 of 27 a careful review of Pennsylvania’s statute of repose and the relevant case law, the Court finds that the statute of repose bars ABB’s contribution claims against the B & W Defendants, but does not bar Plaintiffs’ products liability and negligence claims against ABB. Accordingly, and for the reasons explained below, the Court will GRANT B & W’s motion to dismiss and will DENY ABB’s motion for partial summary judgment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutionality of Statutes of Repose: Federalism Reigns
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 38 Issue 3 Issue 3 - April 1985 Article 8 4-1985 The Constitutionality of Statutes of Repose: Federalism Reigns Josephine H. Hicks Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Josephine H. Hicks, The Constitutionality of Statutes of Repose: Federalism Reigns, 38 Vanderbilt Law Review 627 (1985) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol38/iss3/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Constitutionality of Statutes of Repose: Federalism Reigns I. INTRODUCTION ...................................... 627 II. STATUTES OF REPOSE ............................. 628 A. Defining "Statute of Repose" ............... 628 B. Arguments For and Against Statutes of Re- p ose ...................................... 632 III. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES .............................. 635 A. Equal Protection .......................... 635 B. Due Process ............................... 642 C. Open Courts, Access to Courts, and Remedy. 644 IV. ANALYSIS .......................................... 648 A. Effect of State Constitutional Law .......... 648 B. Future Direction .......................... 652 C. Arguments For and Against National Legisla- tion .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • SOL-CHART.Pdf
    MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Hartford, WI ❖ New Orleans, LA ❖ Orange County, CA ❖ Austin, TX ❖ Jacksonville, FL Phone: (800) 637-9176 [email protected] www.mwl-law.com STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS FOR ALL 50 STATES A statute of limitations (SOL) specifies a time period for commencing suit on a given claim that begins to run, or is triggered, when the cause of action accrues. When a cause of action “accrues” generally depends on the particular state involved, but it is usually when an accident occurs or when a claimant “discovers” the resulting injury. While a statute of limitations takes effect when a claim arises, a statute of repose bars the bringing of a suit after a set period of time, regardless of whether an injury occurred, or a claim has arisen. The time limit for bringing suit established by a statute of repose is triggered by a specified event, such as the substantial completion of an improvement to real property, the date a product was used, or the date a product was sold. All fifty (50) states currently have statutes of repose, varying in both the type of claim covered by the statute and the length of the repose period. Forty-six (46) states have a statute of repose which apply to actions involving real property design, engineering, and construction. However, nineteen (19) states also have statutes of repose limiting product liability claims. STRICT PRODUCT PERSONAL PERSONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS STATE LIABILITY / BREACH OF STATUTE OF REPOSE PROPERTY INJURY REQUIREMENT WARRANTY Construction: 7 Years from substantial 2 Years completion to improvement to real An action is commenced by filing a Ala.
    [Show full text]
  • Statutes of Limitation and Repose in Construction Defect Cases
    We are a full-service Civil Litigation Defense firm serving Western/Central Pennsylvania and West Virginia September 2016 The Gulf Tower 14th Floor 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: 412-258-2255 Fax: 412-263-5632 www.walshlegal.net Walsh, Barnes, Collis & Zumpella, P.C. represents insurance carriers, their insureds, and corporations in actions encompassing the entire civil litigation spectrum. We provide defense of wrongful death and personal injury claims in addition to property losses resulting from: • Automobile and Tractor Trailer Accidents • Catastrophic Fire Losses Statutes of Limitation and Repose • Construction Accidents in Construction Defect Cases • Employment Practices Liability The affirmative defenses 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated • Executive Liability of the statute of limitations and Statutes. • Insurance Coverage the statute of repose are two (2) A statute of repose is a statute • Premises Liability powerful defenses a defendant barring any suit that is brought after in a construction defect case may a specified time since the defendant • Product Liability assert. Although the successful acted, even if this period ends • Professional Liability assertion of both of these defenses before the plaintiff has suffered a may result in an early dismissal of resulting injury. A statute of repose IN THIS ISSUE: a lawsuit, these defenses are quite begins to run upon the completion Statutes of Limitation and Repose different in both theory and practical of certain conduct by a party. Graver in Construction Defect Cases ................... Page 1 application. v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 96 A.3d Workers’ Compensation Immunity Generally, a statute of limitation 383 (Pa.Super. 2014). Because is Broad, But… .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Tort Claims Act II
    Federal Tort Claims Act II In This Issue Using the “Private Individual Under Like Circumstances” to Your Advantage: The Analogous Private Liability Requirement Under the January Federal Tort Claims Act . 1 2011 By Adam M. Dinnell Volume 59 Number 1 The Federal Tort Claims Act is a Very Limited Waiver of Sovereign United States Immunity – So Long as Agencies Follow Their Own Rules and Do Not Department of Justice Executive Office for Simply Ignore Problems . 16 United States Attorneys Washington, DC By David S. Fishback 20530 H. Marshall Jarrett Director Jurisdiction Limits on Damages in FTCA Cases . 31 By Jeff Ehrlich Contributors' opinions and statements should not be considered an endorsement by EOUSA for any policy, program, The Benefit of Proving Benefits – Avoiding Paying Twice For the Same or service. Injury Under the FTCA . .35 The United States Attorneys' Bulletin is published pursuant to 28 By Conor Kells CFR § 0.22(b). The United States Attorneys' Defending Wrongful Death and Survival Claims Brought Under the Bulletin is published bimonthly by the Executive Office for United Federal Tort Claims Act . 41 States Attorneys, Office of Legal Education, 1620 Pendleton Street, By Jamie L. Hoxie Columbia, South Carolina 29201. Managing Editor The United States’ Waivers of Sovereign Immunity in Admiralty . .46 Jim Donovan By Peter Myer Law Clerks Elizabeth Gailey Carmel Matin Researching the Legislative History of the Federal Tort Claims Act . .52 Internet Address By Jennifer L. McMahan and Mimi Vollstedt www.usdoj.gov/usao/ reading_room/foiamanuals. html Send article submissions and address changes to Managing Editor, United States Attorneys' Bulletin, National Advocacy Center, Office of Legal Education, 1620 Pendleton Street, Columbia, SC 29201.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
    Case 3:14-cv-01028-CSH Document 52 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MARSHALL CARO and INDII.com USE, LLC 3:14-CV-01028 (CSH) Plaintiffs, v. FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES, KATHERINE HO, BILL ROTHFARB, April 30, 2015 EVAN ROTHFARB, MICHAEL SHANNON, and MICHAEL HOENIG Defendants. RULING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS HAIGHT, Senior District Judge: Plaintiffs Marshall Caro, pro se, and Indii.com USE ("Indii") bring this diversity action seeking damages arising from Defendants' allegedly unlawful restraint of Indii's Fidelity Brokerage account. Defendants are Bill Rothfarb, a judgment creditor, his attorney, Evan Rothfarb (the "Rothfarb Defendants") Fidelity Brokerage Services ("Fidelity"), the custodian of the Indii account, Katherine Ho, a Fidelity employee, and Michael Shannon and Michael Hoenig, Fidelity's attorneys (the "Fidelity Defendants"). The complaint sets forth claims arising under state common and statutory law. The Rothfarb Defendants and the Fidelity Defendants have filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint. Docs. [25] and [37]. Each set of defendants moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure12(b)(6) on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The Fidelity Case 3:14-cv-01028-CSH Document 52 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 78 Defendants also move to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over Ho, Hoenig and Shannon, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Plaintiffs oppose Defendants' motions to dismiss.
    [Show full text]
  • Tolling Securities Claims: “In No Event” Means
    Latham & Watkins Securities Litigation & Professional Liability July 10, 2017 | Number 2174 Practice Tolling Securities Claims: “In No Event” Means ... What It Says US Supreme Court: Securities Act’s 3-year statute of repose is not subject to equitable tolling, providing greater certainty to underwriters. Key Points: • Case has significant implications for financial Institutions that serve as underwriters to securities offerings. • The Court explained that policy arguments are irrelevant when the statutory language is clear, as the Court “lacks the authority to rewrite the statute.” • The Court determined that the statute of repose’s purpose to provide defendants with protection after a certain time distinguishes between class suits and individual suits. In California Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, upheld the Second Circuit decision dismissing CalPERS’ opt-out action against a group of bank underwriters as untimely under the 3-year time limitation in §13 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Supreme Court’s ruling confirmed that the time bar functions as a statute of repose that is not subject to equitable tolling. The tension in the case rested with whether the Court could apply equitable principles to toll §13’s clear language that “[i]n no event shall any action be brought ... more than three years after the security was bona fide offered to the public.” The decision largely focused on the fact that a statute of repose is “an absolute bar on a defendant’s temporal liability,” and is designed to provide defendants with certainty regarding the claims they will face.
    [Show full text]
  • Rejecting the Class Action Tolling Forfeiture Rule
    41674-nyu_94-4 Sheet No. 163 Side A 10/04/2019 07:34:32 \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYU\94-4\NYU409.txt unknown Seq: 1 3-OCT-19 14:08 REJECTING THE CLASS ACTION TOLLING FORFEITURE RULE JAMES J. MAYER* This Note analyzes a circuit split over the application of the Forfeiture Rule, which holds that plaintiffs forfeit American Pipe tolling when they file individual actions before class certification has been resolved in the underlying putative class action. This Note rejects the Forfeiture Rule and argues that it misunderstands the purpose and rationale of American Pipe and class action tolling. Given the increased uncer- tainty facing class action plaintiffs, the policy and equity interests that motivated courts to adopt the Forfeiture Rule now require courts to abandon it. This is the first article to analyze the Forfeiture Rule’s history and evolution, to explore the impact of changes in class action jurisprudence on statutes of limitations on the Forfeiture Rule, and to argue against the continued viability of the Forfeiture Rule across the federal judicial system. INTRODUCTION ................................................. 900 R I. AMERICAN PIPE TOLLING AND THE FORFEITURE RULE ...................................... 905 R A. The Creation and Policy Goals of American Pipe Tolling .............................................. 906 R B. Individual Plaintiffs and the Forfeiture Rule . 909 R C. The Development of the Forfeiture Rule . 911 R 1. In Favor of the Forfeiture Rule . 911 R 2. Against the Forfeiture Rule. 916 R II. CHANGES IN THE LAW DEMONSTRATE WHERE THE FORFEITURE RULE CAN LEAD TO INJUSTICE . 922 R A. Class Certification Is More Uncertain . 922 R 41674-nyu_94-4 Sheet No.
    [Show full text]
  • ILLINOIS COURT of CLAIMS INDEX of GENERAL and CRIME VICTIM OPINIONS VOLUMES 38 Through 72
    ILLINOIS COURT OF CLAIMS INDEX OF GENERAL AND CRIME VICTIM OPINIONS VOLUMES 38 through 72 Illinois Court of Claims All Rights Reserved Printed by authority of the State of Illinois. February 2021 – 1 – CC 116.3 1 Table of Contents GENERAL INDEX ......................................................................................................................... 4 Agency ................................................................................................................................. 4 Assumption of Risk .............................................................................................................. 4 Attorney Fees ....................................................................................................................... 4 Collateral Estoppel-Res Judicata ...................................................................................... 5 Contracts ............................................................................................................................. 6 Damages ........................................................................................................................... 11 Defamation ........................................................................................................................ 13 Employment ...................................................................................................................... 13 Evidence ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS BILL #: CS/CS/HB 875 Limitations of Actions Other Than for the Recovery of Real
    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS BILL #: CS/CS/HB 875 Limitations of Actions Other Than for the Recovery of Real Property SPONSOR(S): Judiciary Committee; Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee; Leek TIED BILLS: None IDEN./SIM. BILLS: CS/CS/SB 536 REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or BUDGET/POLICY CHIEF 1) Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee 13 Y, 0 N, As Tuszynski Bond CS 2) Judiciary Committee 20 Y, 0 N, As Tuszynski Poche CS SUMMARY ANALYSIS The Rules of Civil Procedure require a party to assert all counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims within 20 days of the filing of the pleading triggering the claim. Should an applicable statute of limitations expire in those 20 days, a compulsory counterclaim, a cross-claim, or third-party claim that arises from the same conduct or occurrence will not be barred, although a permissive counterclaim will be barred. CS/CS/HB 875 extends the statute of limitations for a construction defect to allow counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims up to one year after the filing of a pleading to which such claims relate in actions based on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement to real property, even if such claim would otherwise be time barred. The bill provides that once a governmental authority issues a certificate of completion or certificate of occupancy, actions to correct defects or deficiencies or warranty obligations do not extend the time to bring a claim by delaying the start of the running of the statutes of limitations or repose. The bill does not appear to have any fiscal impact on state or local government.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Statute of Repose Vs. Statute of Limitations Per State
    A COMPARISON OF STATUTE OF REPOSE VS. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PER STATE A risk management resource for design professionals to protect against construction related claims. *To search for a specific state, click on Edit in the menu bar and then click Find. Type full state name in dialog box and click Next. State Statute of Repose Statute of Limitations Statute Comments Alabama (a) All civil actions in tort, contract, or Baugher v. Beaver Constr. Co., 791 So. 2d 2 years AL otherwise against any architect or engineer 932 (Ala. 2000) (finding tenants’ claim Code of Ala. § 6-5-221 (2018). performing or furnishing the design, planning, against home construction company 15 specifications, testing, supervision, years after completion of the administration, or observation of any construction was barred by the then construction of any improvement on or to applicable 13-year statute of repose). real property, or against builders who constructed, or performed or managed the construction of, an improvement on or to real property designed by and constructed under the supervision, administration, or observation of an architect or engineer, or designed by and constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications prepared by an architect or engineer, for the recovery of damages for: (i) Any defect or deficiency in the design, planning, specifications, testing, supervision, administration, or observation of the construction of any such improvement, or any defect or deficiency in the construction of any such improvement; or (ii) Damage to real or personal property caused by any such defect or deficiency; or (iii) Injury to or wrongful death of a person caused by any such defect or deficiency; shall be commenced within two years next after a cause of action accrues or arises, and not thereafter.
    [Show full text]