|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|S061171 (CONTROL) S061185|
|Sunset Presbyterian Church v. Brockamp & Jaeger, Inc.|
|Supreme Court Case 2|
|Edwin C. Perry, Bruce R. Gilbert and Anne Cohen on behalf of Brockamp & Jaeger, Inc.|
Michael T. Stone on behalf of Anderson Roofing Co., Inc.
Justin Monahan, Phillip E. Joseph and Daniel R. Webert on behalf of Sunset Presbyterian Church
Statement of Issues:
|Sunset Presbyterian Church v. Brockamp & Jaeger, Inc., (S061171) (Control) (S061185) (A146006) (appeal from Washington County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 254 Or App 24, 295 P3d 62 (2012).|
Defendants Brockamp & Jaeger, Inc., and Anderson Roofing Company filed separate petitions for review and have been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that reversed and remanded a trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendants based on the trial court's conclusion that plaintiff's claims were time-barred.
On review, the issues are:
(S061171): To determine when the statute of limitations commences with respect to a claim for alleged construction defects, when the construction contract contains an accrual provision that specifies that any applicable statute of limitations shall begin to run no later than the "date of substantial completion" of the improvement, is the triggering event substantial completion, or is a Certificate of Substantial Completion required?
(S061185): To determine when the ten-year statute of ultimate repose in ORS 12.135 begins to run, in the absence of the contractee's written acceptance that the construction, alteration, or repair of an improvement to real property or any designated portion thereof has reached that state of completion where it may be used or occupied for its intended purpose, what constitutes the date of "substantial completion" of a construction project?
The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: