Statutes of Limitation

Subscribe to Statutes of Limitation

In the recently issued but unpublished decision Reed v. SunRun, Inc. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC498002, Feb. 2, 2018), the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that a solar power purchase agreement (“PPA”) provider that only sells solar energy to homeowners is not required to be a licensed California contractor under certain…

On June 9, 2017, my colleague, Karl Oles, and I (both from the Seattle office of Stoel Rives) will present at the annual meeting and seminar for WSBA’s Construction Section, which this year is entitled Washington Statutes Affecting Construction.  This seminar, located at the WSBA Conference Center in Seattle, will feature in-depth discussions regarding…

In Shell v. Schollander Companies, Inc., the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed a line of appellate decisions distinguishing between defect claims arising out of construction performed for an owner and defect claims arising out of an owner’s purchase of an existing structure.  In Schollander, the homeowner sought recovery for defects in the construction of…

In my recent article “Put in Writing When the Clock Starts Ticking,” I discuss how varying intrepretations statue of limitations can affect your business. Setting your own time limits on claims in your construction contracts can help you manage risk.

Read the full article here.

“Put in Writing When the Clock Starts Ticking” was…

In my recent article, “Provision Providing for Early Accrual of Statute of Limitations Held Inapplicable,” I discuss the Oregon Supreme Court’s reversal of a trial court’s decision that, by the terms of the parties’ contract, plaintiff’s tort claims accrued on the date of substantial completion and were time-barred.

Read the full article, here.

“Provision…

You may have recently heard that on December 11, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied the builder’s Petition for Review of the published decision in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC, 163 Cal. Rptr. 3d 600, Cal. App. 4th 98 (2013). For builders and contractors, this is very frustrating news and undermines…

Can parties waive both the commencement and length of the statutory limitation periods for construction defect actions?  Yes, answered the Fourth Appellate District, by allowing the parties to contractually preclude the application of the “delayed discovery” rule that normally triggers the commencement of the limitation time period and affirming case law permitting the shortening of the 10-year latent limitation period to four years.  The court did hold, however, that such waiver and shortening is permitted where there are sophisticated parties, in a commercial context, and perhaps that the contract must even be highly negotiated (or at least such negotiation is available).

On June 3, 2013, in Brisbane Lodging, L.P. v. Webcor Builders, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., June 3, 2013, No. A132555) 2013 WL 2404154, the appellate court reviewed the trial judge’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the general contractor (“Webcor”) on the grounds that a provision in the 1997 version of the AIA 201 (General Conditions to the prime agreement between Owner and Contractor) unambiguously barred all claims, contract and tort, brought more than four years after substantial completion of the project, rather than four years after the Owner discovered the alleged breach or defect and within the 10-year statute of repose.  The key language for both the trial court and the appellate court was found in provision 13.7:

“13.7 Commencement of Statutory Limitation Period

“13.7.1 As between the Owner and Contractor:

“.1 Before Substantial Completion. As to acts or failures to act occurring prior to the relevant date of Substantial Completion, any applicable statute of limitations shall commence to run and any alleged cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued in any and all events not later than such date of Substantial Completion ….” (AIA A201, Article 13.7.1.1 (Article 13.7.1.1), bolding and capitalization omitted.)

The Nevada Supreme Court has answered a question that developers and contractors have been asking for years:  can the statutory limitation period for a construction defect action be shortened?  The court answered in the affirmative but held that there must be no statute to the contrary and that the reduced limitation period must be reasonable …

There are now 25 states in the U.S. that hold that construction defects are not an “occurrence” and are therefore not covered under commercial general liability policies insuring contractors.  Couple this troubling statistic with the ever increasing number of policy exclusions and limitations, and we begin to realize that in many situations the contractor’s insurance policy is inadequate (or non-existent) protection against defects. 

The importance of performance bonds as security to pay for construction defects is therefore growing.  While some sureties who sell the bonds will tell you that bonds merely guarantee completion, and do not insure against latent defects, the language of the typical bond defies this position.

 

Bonds plainly state that they guarantee each and every obligation of the contractor under the contract.  Those obligations usually include the duty to perform work according to the plans and specifications, the standard of care, and without defect or nonconformity.  This author has not seen a bond that attempts to carve out construction defects from its coverage.  And bonds do not have the host of exclusions or limited coverage grants that plague the value of insurance policies.  By the same token, bonds are not perfect and owners should consider the following to get the most protection from a bond:

 

First, the bond duration should extend at least as long as the warranty period (typically one year from completion but sometimes longer) and for as many years thereafter as possible, up to the statute of repose period in the state in which the project is located.  Because construction defects often appear years after completion, the bond duration is critical.  You may pay more for a bond with a longer duration, but if the bond is needed, you should be paying less for the unreliable insurance carried by the contractor.