|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|S061488 (CONTROL) S061505|
|PIH Beaverton, LLC v. Super One, Inc.|
|Supreme Court Case 2|
|Jack Levy on behalf of Super One, Inc.|
Michael T. Stone on behalf of T T & L Sheet Metal, Inc.
Daniel T. Goldstein on behalf of PIH Beaverton, LLC
Norma S. Ninomiya on behalf of Gary Thompson
Jonathan W. Henderson on behalf of Wood Mechanix, Inc.
Statement of Issues:
|PIH Beaverton, LLC v. Super One, Inc. (S061488) (Control) (S061505) (A142268) (Control) (A142301) (appeal from Washington County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 254 Or App 486, 294 P3d 537 (2013)).|
Defendants Super One, Inc., and T.T. & L. Sheet Metal, Inc., filed separate petitions for review and have been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision regarding a trial court's general judgment (based on the 10-year statute of ultimate repose), that granted summary judgment to defendants on the negligent construction claim of plaintiff PIH Beaverton, LLC and dismissed the general contractor defendant Super One's cross-claim and third-party indemnity claims against subcontractor defendants Gary Thompson dba Portland Plastering Company and Wood Mechanix, Inc. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part with respect to defendant Super One's indemnity claims and reversed in part with respect to plaintiff's claims against defendants.
On review, the issues are:
(1) Whether the posting of a notice of completion under ORS 87.045 (a statute related to the filing of construction liens) is an acceptance in writing within the meaning of ORS 12.135(3) (2007), so that the date of posting of such a notice is the date of "substantial completion" that starts the period of ultimate repose running under ORS 12.135(1) (2007), if the owner who posts the notice takes possession of the improvement at the same time and uses it for its intended purpose.
(2) In the absence of a written acceptance within the meaning of ORS 12.135(3) (2007), whether an owner of real property who has taken possession of the improvement and used it for its intended purpose has accepted the "completed construction" within the meaning of ORS 12.135(3) (2007), so that the date of that acceptance is the date of "substantial completion" that starts the period of ultimate repose running under ORS 12.135(1) (2007).
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: