Say it Ain’t So Joe! – Developer Learns There is More Than One Meaning for SOL

Shoeless Joe JacksonI was in trial last month.

I couldn’t have asked for a better judge. Smart, fair . . . and witty.

During the pretrial conference, opposing counsel and I were arguing before the judge over whether there was a difference between federal and state law concerning a particular legal issue (oh, the interesting things we lawyers talk about). I was arguing there was a distinction and opposing counsel was arguing they were the same . . . or, at least, should be the same.

After we finished our arguments, the judge turned to my opposing counsel and said: “You know, this reminds me of the Black Sox Scandal, as “Shoeless Joe” Jackson is leaving the courthouse after being found guilty for throwing the 1919 World Series, and a young boy tugs at the sleeve of the renown ball player and says, ‘Say it ain’t so Joe?!'”

“Well, it’s so.”

In Brisbane Lodging, L.P. v. Webcor Builders, Inc., Case No. A132555 (June 3, 2013), a disappointed developer who tried to argue that California’s 10-year statute of limitations for latent defects couldn’t be . . . or, rather, shouldn’t be . . . limited by a provision in a construction contract providing for a shorter limitations period learned to its dismay that it was unfortunately so.

The AIA A201

In 1999, Brisbane Lodging, L.P. (“Brisbane”) and Webcor Builders, Inc. (“Webcor”) entered into a contract for the design and construction of a 210-room, eight story hotel to be known as the Sierra Pointe Radisson Hotel. The contract, an AIA A201 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor (Cost Plus Fee) contract (“AIA A201”), was extensively negotiated by the parties who were represented by counsel.

Article 13.7.1.1 of the AIA A201 addressed the commencement of the statute of limitations (or, “SOL,” as we attorneys sometimes call them) 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 . . . .

After the contract was negotiated and signed, work commenced, and the project was substantially completed on July 31, 2000.

The Latent Defects

In early 2005, Brisbane discovered a sewer line break in the kitchen which was causing waste water to flow under the property. Webcor visited the property, and Therma Corporation (“Therma”), Webcor’s plumbing subcontractor, made repairs to the sewer line.

In late 2007, Brisbane told Webcor that it was still having problems with the sewer line. Webcor had Therma return to the property and run a video camera through the sewer line. During the video inspection the camera fell out of the pipe, indicating the pipe had become disconnected (not good), but Therma did not provide this information to Brisbane (REALLY not good).

Ultimately, Brisbane discovered that Therma had used ABS pipe for the sewer line rather than cast iron pipe as required under the Uniform Plumbing Code. In May 2008, Brisbane filed a lawsuit against Webcor for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of implied and express warranties.

The Court of Appeals Decision

In the trial court, Webcor filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that under the AIA A201 the statute of limitations began to run on the date of “substantial completion” which was July 31, 2000, and that Brisbane failed to file its lawsuit within four years of that date and instead filed its lawsuit almost eight years later in May 2008. The trial court granted Webcor’s motion and Brisbane appealed.

On appeal, Brisbane made two arguments:

  1. That, under the “delayed discovery rule,” its claim did not begin until Brisbane discovered the defect, and that it did not discover the defect until at the earliest 2005 and that filed its lawsuit three years later; and
  2. That the shorter limitations period in the AIA A201 was void against public policy because California has a 10-year statute of limitations for latent defects.

    The California Court of Appeals for the First District disagreed.

While recognizing that under the delayed discovery rule a cause of action does not begin until the “plaintiff either (1) actually discovered his injury and its negligent cause or (2) could have discovered [the] injury and cause through the exercise of reasonable diligence,” and recognizing that enforceability of the AIA A201’s shorter limitations period was “a question of first impression in California,” the Court held that because “sophisticated parties should be allowed to strike their own bargains” that the shorter limitations period was enforceable.

In addition, the Court held that statutes of limitations are “not a right protected under the rule of public policy,” but, rather, that there is a “broader, longstanding established public policy in California which respects and promotes the freed of private parties to contract.” Thus, explained the Court, “we disagree with Brisbane’s position that public policy supports an iron-clad, universal rule that in all cases involving latent defects, the applicable statute of limitations cannot begin to run until he defects were or should have been discovered.”  notwithstanding a contractual agreement to the contrary.”

“Instead,” explained the Court:

[W]e believe that where the parties are on equal footing and where there was considerable sophisticated give and take over the terms of the contract, those parties should be given the ability to enjoy the freedom of contract and to structure risk-shifting as they see fit without judicial intervention.  While Brisbane now decries the unfairness of a contract provision that may result in the loss of entitlement to sue for damages it did not discover in a timely fashion, this is precisely the arrangement to which it agreed.

The Take Away

Brisbane is one of the more important cases to come out from the Court of Appeals in recent years.  Although California’s appellate courts have previously upheld contractual provisions which shorten otherwise applicable statute of limitations so long as they are reasonable,  insurance contracts, being one example,  this is the first reported case in California holding that a provision in a construction contract shortening the otherwise applicable statute of limitations will be enforced . . .  at least when it comes to agreements between sophisticated parties.

6 Responses to “Say it Ain’t So Joe! – Developer Learns There is More Than One Meaning for SOL”

  1. Peter Laufenberg

    Great article Garret. Thanks for keeping us informed!

    Reply
  2. printing safety

    This is the most popular construction blog. I like this blog and shared with my friend. harmonysafetyservice is a batter construction site we can a help this service easily just visit this construction harmonysafetyservice.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Basic HTML is allowed. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

%d bloggers like this: