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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT