Case Allows Parties To Substantially Reduce Ten Year Statutory Exposure

by Farella Braun + Martel LLP
Contact

In a case of first impression, the First Appellate District recently affirmed a judgment holding that standard AIA contract language, providing that all causes of action relating to the contract work accrue from the date of substantial completion of the project, abrogated the so-called discovery rule under which the statute of limitations on a cause of action for latent construction defects begins to run when the defects were, or could have been, discovered.

This is an important decision for the construction industry in California.  It is now clear that contract provisions can change current statutory law concerning when a cause of action for latent deficiencies accrues. A contract provision can substantially shorten the ten year statutory period of potential liability exposure.  This may or may not be in a party’s interests, depending on who the party is. Owners will not benefit from such a contract provisions, but designers and contractors likely will.

 

In 1999, Brisbane Lodging, L.P. (“Brisbane”) and Webcor Builders, Inc. (“Webcor”) entered into a contract for the design and construction of an eight-story Radisson Hotel.  The final contract was heavily negotiated between the parties and contained the 1997 American Institute of Architects Document A201General Conditions (“1997 AIA A201”), among other documents.  Article 13.7.1.1 of the A201 addressed the commencement of the statutory limitations period for work completed prior to substantial completion of the project:

 

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…  1997 AIA A201, Article 13.7.1.1 (“Article 13.7.1.1”).

 

The Radisson Hotel was substantially completed on July 31, 2000.  Brisbane first noted problems with the sewer line at the hotel in 2005, and again in 2007.  Brisbane ultimately discovered that, among other things, the plumbing contractor had used ABS pipe material rather than case iron pipe for the sewer line, in violation of the Uniform Plumbing Code.

 

In May 2008, Brisbane filed a complaint against Webcor for breach of contract, negligence and breach of express and implied warranties.  Webcor moved for summary judgment, contending that the action was barred by Article 13.7.1.1 in that the statute of limitations began to run on the date of substantial completion.  Brisbane opposed the motion, arguing, among other things, that Article 13.7.1.1 was too vague to be interpreted as a waiver of the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 337.15 (“Section 337.15”) , which sets a maximum 10-year period to sue for latent defects.

 

In granting Webcor’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court found that Article 13.7.1.1 clearly and unambiguously abrogated the delayed discovery rule and the provisions of Section 337.15.  Thus, Brisbane’s action was untimely because the latest date on which it could have been commenced was four years after substantial completion of the project, or in July 2004.  The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Brisbane’s action was time-barred.

 

In so doing, the Court noted that, while the enforceability of the 1997 AIA 201 standard contract accrual waiver provision presented a question of first impression in California, numerous out-of-state authorities had, without exception, concluded that the same provision altered the normal rules governing accrual of causes of action, including the delayed discovery rule, and was valid and enforceable.  It found that Harbor Court Associates v. Leo A. Daily Co., 179 F.3d 147 (4th Cir. 199) ably represented the reasoning of these out-of-state cases.  In Harbor, the court noted that Maryland had expressed “considerable reluctance” to strike down voluntary bargains, especially in cases such as this, where the parties to the agreement are “sophisticated business actors who sought, by contract, to allocate business risk in advance”  Id. at 150-51.  In concluding that Maryland law would allow the parties to waive the delayed discovery rule by contract, it noted that all other states that had addressed the same issue had similarly allowed the delayed discovery rule to be waived or modified by contract.  Id. at 151.

 

In following these out-of-state authorities, the Court found that by tying the running of the applicable statute of limitations to a date certain, Webcor and Brisbane negotiated to avoid the uncertainty of the discovery rule for the security of knowing the date beyond which they would no longer be exposed to potential liability.  Like the out-of-state courts that have considered this provision, the Court concluded that sophisticated parties should be allowed to strike their own bargains and knowingly and voluntarily contract in a manner in which certain risks are eliminated and rights are relinquished.

 

The Court also found that Brisbane did not meet its burden of showing that Article 13.7.1.1 was void as against public policy.  Instead, the Court pointed to legal authorities which reflected the broader, longstanding established public policy in California which respects and promotes the freedom of private parties to contract.  Furthermore, it was not unreasonable for the parties here—seeking to protect themselves from the damaging consequences of indefinite liability exposure—to shorten the 10-year period to a period equivalent to the applicable statute of limitations, or up to four years.

 

The Court further found Moreno v. Sanchez, 106 Cal.App.4th 1415 (2003), in which the court refused to enforce contractual language that had the effect of not only shortening the limitations period, but also waiving the delayed discovery rule, inapplicable here.  In Moreno, plaintiffs were unsophisticated in construction matters and relied on the expertise of home inspectors to discover latent defects in their home.  Furthermore, the Court agreed that Moreno “merely stands for the limited proposition that a cause of action may not accrue in a suit against a home inspector until the injury is discovered.”  Citing In re Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., 615 F.Supp.2d 1018 (N.D.Cal. 2009).

 

It should be noted that Article 13.7.1.1 has been subsequently revised in the 2007 AIA A201.  The 2007 AIA A201 strikes out Article 13.7.1.1 in its entirety and replaces it with the following:

 

The Owner and Contractor shall commence all claims and causes of action, whether in contract, tort, breach of warranty or otherwise, against the other arising out of or related to the Contract in accordance with the requirements of the final dispute resolution method selected in the Agreement within the period specified by applicable law, but in any case not more than 10 years after the date of Substantial Completion of the Work…2007 AIA A201, Article 13.7.

Apparently recognizing the awkwardness of former Section 13.7.1, which set a three part approach to time limits on claims, the 2007 drafters substituted a simpler rule of a maximum of ten years (or shorter if the jurisdiction has a quicker statute of limitations or state of repose) to bring suit or file for arbitration.  This claim limit mirrors a trend among many states to set ten years from project completion as a statute of repose.  This approach is consistent with the discovery rule and does not act as a waiver of Section 337.15.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Farella Braun + Martel LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Farella Braun + Martel LLP
Contact
more
less

Farella Braun + Martel LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!