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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT