Aloia v. Diament Bldg. Corp., 329 A.3d 586 (Pa. 2024) and Clearfield County v. Transystems Corp., 338 A.3d 110 (Pa. 2025)
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has accepted review in two matters that could materially affect the scope and predictability of Pennsylvania’s 12-year construction statute of repose, potentially expanding exposure for design professionals, contractors and others involved in improvements to real property.
In Aloia, the court is poised to address whether the statute’s protection for those “lawfully performing or furnishing” construction-related services turns on general legal authorization to perform the work (e.g., permits/approvals) or whether alleged building code violations can remove a project from the statute’s protection and permit otherwise time-barred claims to proceed.
In Clearfield County, the court is expected to consider whether the common law doctrine of nullum tempus (“time does not run against the king”) allows counties or other political subdivisions to pursue claims notwithstanding the construction statute of repose, a ruling that could create a public-entity exception to repose protections.
Together, these cases are significant because they test the durability of the statute of repose as a firm, predictable cutoff for construction-related liability. Depending on how the court rules, long-settled expectations regarding finality and risk allocation may be altered, potentially expanding exposure for design professionals and contractors—particularly where code compliance is challenged, or public entities assert claims long after project completion.
