ILNews

Company filed suit within applicable limitations

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A construction company's attempt to cast itself in the same class of professionals as attorneys or architects was rejected by the Indiana Court of Appeals today. The appellate court upheld on interlocutory appeal the denial of the company's motion for summary judgment in a breach of contract complaint.

In Powers & Sons Construction Co. Inc. v. Healthy East Chicago, No. 45A05-0904-CV-204, Powers & Sons filed a motion for summary judgment alleging Healthy East Chicago filed its complaint against the construction company for breach of contract outside of the applicable statute of limitations.

Healthy East Chicago hired Powers & Sons in late 1997 to serve as the construction manager for the building of a new health service facility. After construction was completed in December 1998, Healthy East Chicago discovered cracks in the floors, walls, and ceilings. The construction company claimed the cracks were normal because of movement and settling. In February 2007, Healthy East Chicago sued the company.

The dispute in this case is over which statute of limitations applies - Powers & Sons claimed a 2-year statute of limitations on injury to personal property applies; Healthy East Chicago argued the 10-year statute of limitations on contracts applies.

Even in the "broad and natural sense" of the term, Healthy East Chicago's building isn't personal property, wrote Judge Margret Robb. The building would typically be considered part of the real estate, so the appellate court rejected Powers & Sons argument that the 2-year statute of limitations applied.

Healthy East Chicago argued the substance of its action is in contract; Powers & Sons argued the action is in tort, citing Whitehouse v. Quinn, 477 N.E.2d 270, 272 (Ind. 1985). The construction company also attempted to claim it was in the same class as professionals that may be held liable in tort if they fail to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling their contractual duties, and that Healthy East Chicago's complaint is professional negligence.

"We have never held the responsibility of a general contractor to be akin to that of an attorney or a doctor, however," wrote Judge Robb. "The relationship between the parties and Powers & Sons's duties and responsibilities as general contractor arose from the contract rather than from a standard of care imposed by law."

Healthy East Chicago's complaint sought recovery of damages sustained as a result of Powers & Sons' failure to perform according to the contract, therefore, its complaint is governed by the 10-year statute of limitations applicable to written contracts, the appellate court ruled.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT