Venema v. Moser Builders, Inc., 2022 Pa. Super. LEXIS 414 (October 4, 2022) (Pellegrini, J.) Matthew P. Venema and Liza A. Squires (Appellants) seek review of an order of the Court of Common Pleas Chester County (trial court) awarding judgment on the pleadings to Moser Builders, Inc., d/b/a/ Moser Homes and Moser Homes, LLC, and Moser Construction Management, LLC d/b/a Moser Homes (referred to collectively as “Moser”). In 2019, Appellants filed several claims against Moser alleging that the defective construction of their residence had caused them damages. Moser moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that Appellants’ claims were time-barred by the 12-year Statute of Repose (42 Pa.C.S. § 5536) for actions concerning construction defects. The trial court granted Moser’s motion and dismissed Appellants’ complaint with prejudice. Appellants now argue that their complaint was timely filed because the Statute of Repose period was tolled by Moser’s ongoing repairs to the residence. We affirm. Appellants cite no cases or statutes (and we find none) supporting their contention that Moser’s repairs to the residence delayed the completion of the residence’s construction or tolled the Statute of Repose period. Rather, our Supreme Court has held that a Statute of Repose “generally may not be tolled, even in cases of extraordinary circumstances beyond a plaintiff’s control.” Dubose v. Quinlan, 643 Pa. 244, 173 A.3d 634, 644-45 (Pa. 2017); see also Kornfeind v New Werner Holding Co., 2020 PA Super 266, 241 A.3d 1212, 1220 (Pa. Super. 2020) (explaining that a statute of repose period creates a near absolute bar on a defendant’s temporal liability which begins on the date on which a claim first accrued). We have also held that in this context, “completion of the construction of such improvement,” marks the “commencement of the repose period at the point when third parties are first exposed to defects in design, planning, or construction.” Catanzaro v. Wasco Prod., Inc., 339 Pa. Super. 481, 489 A.2d 262, 266 (Pa. Super. 1985) (quoting Patraka v. Armco Steel Co., 495 F. Supp. 1013 (M.D. Pa.1980)). Accordingly, regardless of any repairs Moser may have done once the residence was legally occupied, the occupants would have been exposed to the alleged defects in 2003, and the Statute of Repose period would have continued to run without interruption from that point on. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in ruling that Appellants’ claims are time-barred by the Statute of Repose, and the order granting judgment on the pleadings to Moser must stand.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS-STATUTE OF REPOSE-CONSTRUCTION
October 19th, 2022 by Rieders Travis in Statute of Limitations