Last month the Oregon Supreme Court heard oral argument in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, Inc., a residential construction defect case.  Shortly after the Oregon Court of Appeals published its opinion in September 2009, Ahead of Schedule authors Eric Grasberger (“Negligence Claims Take Another Twist in Oregon” and Kip Childs (“Oregon Court of Appeals Provides Clarification to Contractor Negligence Claims” commented on the decision.  The case pits the homeowners, the Abrahams, against their general contractor, Keith Lucas, and framing contractor, Kevin Mayo.

Unhappy with the result in the Court of Appeals, Lucas and Mayo petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court seeking review on several questions that are described in the Court’s media release.  Because the case involved several issues frequently litigated in construction defect cases (economic loss rule, statutes of limitation, building codes as the basis for a negligence claim, etc.), the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association (“OTLA”) and Oregon Home Builders Association (“OHBA”) weighed in and filed amicus curiae (literally, “friend of the court”) briefs.  These briefs followed predictable lines of argument.  Among other things, OTLA urged the Court to decide in favor of the plaintiffs and hold that, among other things, a discovery rule applies to breach of contract actions.  For its part, OHBA suggested that the Court find that, absent a special relationship, one party to a contract (such the plaintiff project owner) should not be permitted to assert a negligence claim against the other party (such as the project’s general contractor). 


Whether the Court will take up these important issues remains to be seen.  However, until they are addressed by Oregon’s highest court (or legislature), these controversial issues will continue to be the source of much legal wrangling and uncertainty for both plaintiffs and defendants alike.