In September 2013, I blogged about the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals (“COA”) in Christie v. Hartley Construction, Inc., which held that owners of an improvement to real property could not recover money damages under a supplier’s express 20-year warranty because the lawsuit was filed outside of North Carolina’s applicable six-year “statute of repose.” That statute, codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-50(a)(5), bars damages actions arising from improvements to real property asserted more than six years after substantial completion. The COA’s Christie decision effectively meant that the statute of repose trumped an express warranty of a longer duration.
As I mentioned in my prior blog post, however, one of three COA judges on the Christie panel dissented from the majority’s opinion, giving plaintiffs the right to appeal to the state’s Supreme Court. They did. And that Court reached the opposite conclusion of the COA majority, ruling that the protection provided by the six-year statute of repose could be waived without violating North Carolina public policy.
Let’s break down the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in Christie:
There is no milestone more significant to a commercial construction project than substantial completion. For an owner, it’s the long-awaited moment it can make beneficial use of its investment. For prime contractors, it’s the moment the owner’s rights to terminate and/or assess liquidated damages is cut off. For subcontractors, it’s the moment contractual warranties typically begin to run. The list goes on and on.
In light of how many legal rights and defenses are tied to the moment of substantial completion, you would think that contracting parties would take extra care to (1) define what constitutes “substantial completion” and (2) ensure that “substantial completion” is achieved in accordance with that carefully crafted contractual definition.
That’s not always the case, as a 2013 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (which includes North Carolina) reveals.
A couple of weeks ago, I posted my thoughts about the N.C. Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. v. Richmond Hills Residential Partners, LLC et al., which held that an engineer’s preparation of a project status update letter constituted what I call a “lienable activity,” i.e., an event sufficient to trigger the 120-day deadline for filing a mechanics’ lien under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 44A-12(b). In light of the Ramey Kemp decision, general contractors might well ask themselves, “Gee, if an engineer’s project status letter is a lienable activity on a construction project, how about the close-out paperwork I’ve gotta provide under my contract, particularly as-builts?” Good question. Continue reading