Tennessee Court of Appeals Holds That Plaintiff’s Status as a Minor Does Not Suspend Statute of Repose in Construction Litigation

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently confirmed that a Plaintiff’s status as a minor does not toll the Statute of Repose in construction cases filed in Tennessee. While the Tennessee Supreme Court had previously determined that a Plaintiff’s minority did not suspend a similar Statute of Repose applicable to medical malpractice actions, the Court of Appeals has now concluded that only a limited time period exists to bring a lawsuit arising out of an alleged injury following “substantial completion” of an improvement to real property, regardless of the age of the injured party.

Attorneys Bradford D. Box and Nathan E. Shelby of Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell PLC (Rainey Kizer) represented a defendant contractor in the case at both the trial and appellate levels. Attorneys Box and Shelby, who represent litigants in a broad range of suits throughout Tennessee, obtained summary judgment in favor of their contractor at the trial level, and the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.

“This is an important ruling for contractors because they can now know with certainty the length of time during which their liability may extend following substantial completion of an improvement to real property and they can rely upon the statutory definition to determine when substantial completion occurs,” Box said.

According to Tennessee’s Statute of Repose, the limited time period for filing a complaint against a contractor or subcontractor for personal injuries arising from construction projects involving an improvement to real property is four years. If the injury occurs during the fourth year, an additional year is added to the time limit, but the limit can never exceed five years from the date of “substantial completion,” except in very limited circumstances. The Court of Appeals affirmed that this statutory requirement is a statute of repose, and because minority is not listed as an exception to the statute, the Statute of Repose in construction cases is not tolled by a Plaintiff’s minority.

Addressing a second important issue in the case, the Court of Appeals also confirmed that “substantial completion” is not dependent upon compliance with local building ordinances. Instead, the Court determined that the plain statutory definition controls.

For additional information on this release, please contact:

Casey Smith

Phone: (731) 426-8122

Email: csmith@raineykizer.com

Source: Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C.

Website: https://raineykizer.com