You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

BALDWIN CARPET LINOLEUM v. Builders, Inc.

Citations: 523 N.W.2d 33; 3 Neb. Ct. App. 40; 1994 Neb. App. LEXIS 283Docket: A-93-085

Court: Nebraska Court of Appeals; October 4, 1994; Nebraska; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the general contractor Builders, Inc., along with their insurer St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., appealed a district court's ruling that their third-party petition against the University of Nebraska's Board of Regents was time-barred. The underlying dispute arose from a construction contract for the Lied Center for Performing Arts, where Builders subcontracted Baldwin Carpet Linoleum, Inc. to supply and install carpet. Due to delays attributed to the University, the original carpet supplier was unavailable, resulting in an increased cost. Builders sought reimbursement for these costs, which the University partially denied. Builders' claim was deemed untimely, as it was filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations prescribed by the State Contract Claims Act. The court found that the cause of action accrued when the dispute over carpet costs emerged in 1988, not at the conclusion of final negotiations in 1990. The court also noted that ongoing negotiations did not toll the statute of limitations. Consequently, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the University, emphasizing that the claim should have been filed within two years of the project's substantial completion in November 1989.

Legal Issues Addressed

Accrual of Cause of Action

Application: The court held that Builders' cause of action accrued before the certificate of substantial completion was issued on November 15, 1989, as the dispute over the increased carpet price began in the summer of 1988.

Reasoning: In this case, the dispute over the increased carpet price began in the summer of 1988, with the University rejecting claims for the additional costs.

Standard of Review for Summary Judgment

Application: Summary judgment was granted in favor of the University because no genuine issues of material fact existed, applying a standard of review that favors the non-moving party.

Reasoning: The court affirms this decision, applying a standard of review that favors the non-moving party, requiring that no genuine issues of material fact be present for summary judgment to be granted.

Statute of Limitations under State Contract Claims Act

Application: The court determined that Builders' third-party petition against the University was time-barred as it was not filed within the two-year statute of limitations prescribed by the State Contract Claims Act.

Reasoning: The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the University, determining that Builders failed to file its claim within the 2-year limitation period set by the State Contract Claims Act, specifically under Section 81-8,306.

Statute of Repose for Architects

Application: The Nebraska Supreme Court's precedent that the statute of repose for architects begins upon construction completion was noted, but was not directly applicable to Builders' claim against the University.

Reasoning: The Nebraska Supreme Court has established that the statute of repose for architects, who have a contractual duty to inspect during construction, begins when construction is completed.

Tolling of Statute of Limitations

Application: The court found that ongoing negotiations between Builders and the University did not toll the statute of limitations, as legal precedent indicates the statute begins upon project completion.

Reasoning: However, the court noted that continuing negotiations do not generally toll the statute of limitations.