|
In civil litigation, an injured party must pursue its rights
within the timeframe established by the applicable statute of
limitations, which sets forth the period within which a plaintiff
must file suit or have its claim forever barred. The exact
period of time varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and
may depend on, among other things, the nature of the claim
(e.g., breach of contract or personal injury), the place where
the harm occurred, and when the injury was discovered. Additionally,
many jurisdictions have similar laws known as
“statutes of repose.” A statute of repose, by contrast to a statute
of limitations, terminates a right of action after a specific
time, even if no injury has yet befallen the plaintiff. In the
case of Roy Farms, Inc. v. F&M Construction Co., 2010
Wash. App. LEXIS 49 (2010), the State of Washington’s
statute of repose highlights the need to timely pursue one’s
legal remedies, particularly in the context of construction
litigation.
In Roy Farms, Roy Farms, Inc. (“Roy Farms”), as owner,
contracted with F&M Construction Co. (“F&M”), as general
contractor, to rebuild two cold storage warehouses in 1997.
F&M self-performed certain elements of the work and subcontracted
with two subcontractors to perform certain metal
roofing and refrigeration equipment installation. F&M completed
the project on or about October 24, 1997. On October
29, 2003, just over six (6) years later, a windstorm damaged
the warehouses’ roofs, which had been installed by Continuous
Gutter (“CG”), a subcontractor to F&M. In January of
2005, Roy Farms sued F&M and CG for damages, alleging
that F&M breached the construction contract and that CG
was negligent in the installation of the metal roofs.
In response to the complaint, F&M and CG filed motions for
summary judgment seeking to dismiss the complaint on the
grounds that the Roy Farms’ claims were time barred by
Washington’s statute of repose because they occurred more
than six (6) years after the project achieved substantial completion.
The trial court agreed with the defendants and
granted their motions for summary judgment, dismissing Roy
Farms’ case. Roy Farms then appealed the trial court’s deci sion.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Washington addressed
whether the trial court erred in finding Roy Farms’ claims
barred by the six-year statute of repose. In addressing the |
issue, the court first considered the applicable statute of repose.
Specifically, under Washington law, any claim or cause
of action arising from the construction or improvement upon
real property must be brought within six (6) years of the later
of either substantial completion or termination of services.
Under Washington law, substantial completion is achieved
when the property “may be used or occupied for its intended
use.” The court noted that substantial completion must apply
to the entire improvement, and not just a discrete component.
Additionally, occupancy is not required for substantial completion
to have been reached.
The evidence taken by the trial court indicated that work on
the project was completed no later than October 24, 1997.
Under the court’s interpretation of the statute of repose,
whether or not Roy Farms actually used the buildings was
irrelevant, as upon achievement of substantial completion, the
buildings “may have been used” for their intended purpose.
Roy Farms’ principal argument against application of the statute
of repose was that it had not made use of the warehouses
until well-after October 24, 1997. The court disagreed with
Roy Farms.
Roy Farms also argued that “termination of services,” as contemplated under the statute of repose, had not occurred until
continued on page 2
|
