More analysis that effects our Statute of Repose?
I have often chatted about the Washington Statute of Repose on this blog. The Statute of Repose prevents construction claims, for the most part, from being raised 6 years from the date of substantial completion or termination. Well, a recent Court of Appeals case dove deep into the specific determinative factors that tell us when to start the clock. It certainly raises questions about how long we really have to file suit.
The Statute of Repose has been a frequent topic here, so I will simply direct you to my prior post for further information on how this law works. A recent post was published about a lawsuit that might raise some questions about when and how the clock begins to roll, and claim periods begin to diminish.
The wonderful lawyers at Seattle’s Ahlers & Cressman published a post about the court’s unpublished opinion in Ledcor Industries, Inc. and Admiral Way, LLC v. SQI, Inc., et al. Rather than regurgitate the on-point analysis provided by Masaki Yamada, I will simply refer you over to their blog and suggest that you take 5 minutes to digest the case and the court’s findings. Masaki correctly points out that the court pushed borders to ensure that the Statute of Repose remained intact, supporting application of the Statute of Repose.
In short, the court determined that a project does not have to be completely finished in order to trigger the clock on a claim period. To be honest, I support the court’s analysis and I believe that they determined the most fair and reasonable conclusion, considering the facts. Check out the opinion and Masaki’s article for more on the subject.