Parties In Privity May Sue in Tort Over Construction Defects

Last month's Oregon Appellate Court decision clarifies that parties in privity with one another MAY sue in tort for construction defects.

Previously, the law seemed relatively straight forward:

Unless parties are in a "special relationship" (eg, physician-client; engineer-client), parties in contract with one another generally may not bring a separate cause of action in tort for construction defects.  Jones v. Emerald Pacific Homes, Inc., 188 Or App 471, 71 P.3d 882 (2003). Instead, parties were limited to the remedies agreed to via contract.

That's no longer the case.

In Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, Inc. et al, Case No. A136228, plaintiff home owners sued their contractors and subcontractors over construction defects (resulting in water damage) based on contract and tort.  While Defendants successfully dismissed the contract claim (based on statute of limitations), Defendants were unable to dismiss the tort claims on summary judgment.

Although the court found that there was no "special relationship" between the parties, the court held that the tort claim survives because violations of building code constitute a breach of duty of care independent of contractual duties.  The court found that plaintiffs had pled the requisite elements (essentially negligence per se) and allowed the claim.

Much to every contractor's chagrin, virtually every alleged construction defect can be categorized as a building code violation.  Ergo, tort claims in this context  will survive summary judgment....unless the Supreme Court overturns the Abraham decision....

No Discovery Rule For Construction Defect Claims

Much to the delight of original builders and/or building owners (and the chagrin of some subsequent ones), the discovery rule is not recognized in Oregon in breach of contract cases involving construction defects.  The statute of limitations in those situations runs 6 years from the time of breach.  If shoddy work is not discovered within that 6 year window, the subsequent owner is a different kind of SOL.

The discovery rule typically applies in negligence cases.  As such, the time to file suit doesn't begin (or accrue) until a person realizes it has been injured.  So why not try that argument in a breach of contract context?

Plaintiff in Waxman v. Waxman & Associates, Inc., 224 Or App 499, gave it a shot with the help of a somewhat ambiguous statute addressing the accrual of negligence and contract actions.  Unfortunately for Plaintiff, the Court squarely put to rest any prior debate over whether the discovery rule applies in this context.  The rule is yes for negligence, no for contract actions.

This ruling might be good incentive for subsequent builing owners to purchase appropriate insurance and/or warranties for any construction defects that might be discovered beyond the 6 year window....