Oregon Supreme Court Decisions Clarify Timing for Bringing Claims in Construction Cases
Portland, ORE (PRWEB) May 05, 2014 -- The Oregon Supreme Court recently decided two major construction defect cases involving Ball Janik LLP’s clients. Phillip Joseph and James Prichard, co-chairs of Ball Janik LLP’s construction litigation practice, state that the opinions in these two cases (PIH Beaverton, LLC v. Super One, Inc., Or. No. SC S061488 April 24, 2014 and Sunset Presbyterian Church v. Brockamp & Jaeger, Inc., Or. No. SC S061171 April 24, 2014) resolve open questions regarding the timeliness of construction defect claims. Attorney Dan Goldstein from Ball Janik LLP argued both cases before the Oregon Supreme Court.
According to court documents, in PIH Beaverton, LLC v. Super One, Inc., the Oregon Supreme Court clarified the definition of substantial completion under Oregon’s statute of ultimate repose. The statute defines substantial completion as either the date when the owner confirms in writing the building is usable or, alternatively, when the owner accepts final completion by other means.
In PIH Beaverton, Ball Janik LLP represented a hotel owner with construction defects. The owner had posted a lien protective document entitled “notice of completion,” and the contractor argued that notice was sufficient written acceptance of usability to start the statutes of limitation and ultimate repose. Before the Oregon Supreme Court, Ball Janik LLP argued that the notice of completion is only for lien purposes, and contains no acceptance of usability. The Court agreed, and, according to court documents, went on to hold that without evidence of acceptance in writing, the statutes of limitation and ultimate repose do not begin to run until full completion of the project: “the date on which the construction was fully complete, not the date on which it was sufficiently complete for its intended use or occupancy,” ___OR___, No. SC S061171 slip op. at 17 (April 24, 2014).
In Sunset Presbyterian Church v. Brockamp & Jaeger, Inc., Ball Janik LLP represented a church with construction defects. In Sunset, the contractor asked the Oregon Supreme Court to dismiss the case based upon a time limit within the contract. Ball Janik LLP argued that the contractually-shortened limitation period was not effective because the contractor had not obtained an architect’s certification required by the contract. According to court documents, the Court agreed that the contractor could not rely on the contract clause without the architect’s certificate, and therefore refused to enforce the contractually-shortened statute of ultimate repose.
About Ball Janik LLP
Ball Janik LLP has a national reputation in resolving construction claims for building owners, including construction claims pertaining to building envelope, structural, design, geotechnical, building product, mechanical, plumbing, and collapse.
Ball Janik LLP is a law firm headquartered in Portland, Oregon. For over thirty years, Ball Janik LLP has been offering outstanding legal services in the areas of bankruptcy and creditor rights, commercial litigation, construction, construction defect, employment, government affairs, government contracts, real estate and land use, and securities litigation.
The firm represents large and small businesses; state, municipal and local governments; associations and coalitions; schools and universities; and individuals. With more than 50 attorneys and government affairs specialists, Ball Janik LLP provides clients an aggressive, skilled, team approach to solve problems and achieve results. Ball Janik LLP’s success has made it one of “Portland’s Most Admired Professional Firms,” according to the Portland Business Journal’s 2013 survey questionnaire mailed to 3,200 CEOs in Oregon.
Michaella Johnson, Ball Janik LLP, http://www.balljanik.com, +1 503.944.6065, [email protected]
Share this article