Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a church, acting as the plaintiff, appealed a summary judgment that favored the general contractor and subcontractors involved in the construction of its new facility. The primary legal issue concerned whether the plaintiff's negligence claims were time barred under the applicable statutes of limitations and repose. The trial court initially ruled that the claims were barred, based on a two-year statute of limitations commencing in 1999 and two statutes of ultimate repose, ORS 12.115 and ORS 12.135, which impose a 10-year repose period. The appeal argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment due to incorrect application and interpretation of the commencement date for these limitations and repose periods. The general contractor relied on a contractual accrual clause that was unsupported by evidence of the certified date of substantial completion. The court found that the statute of limitations should begin at the certified date of substantial completion, as outlined in the contract. Additionally, the court determined that the repose period under ORS 12.135, which is specific to construction claims, should apply, taking precedence over ORS 12.115. Given the lack of evidence demonstrating written acceptance of the facility by the plaintiff, the case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings, indicating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the commencement of the repose period.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of ORS 12.135 and ORS 12.115subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: ORS 12.135 is deemed more specific to construction claims and takes precedence over ORS 12.115, establishing a 10-year repose period beginning from substantial completion.
Reasoning: However, ORS 12.135(1) is more specific to construction claims and takes precedence over ORS 12.115.
Burden of Proof for Subcontractorssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Subcontractors must prove no disputed issues exist regarding the plaintiff's acceptance of responsibility for maintenance, alteration, and repair prior to the repose period.
Reasoning: Subcontractors failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff accepted the facility in writing, which required them to prove no disputed issues existed regarding the plaintiff's acceptance of responsibility for maintenance, alteration, and repair prior to March 16, 1999.
Definition of Substantial Completionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Substantial completion is defined as the written acceptance of the completed work by the contractee, or the date of actual occupancy in the absence of such acceptance.
Reasoning: The repose period under ORS 12.135 begins from the date of substantial completion, defined as the written acceptance of the completed work by the contractee, or in the absence of such acceptance, the date of actual occupancy.
Statute of Limitations for Negligence Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the statute of limitations starts with the certified date of substantial completion rather than the date the improvement was usable.
Reasoning: The appeal concludes that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment, thus reversing and remanding the case for further proceedings.