In Bristol Southside Association, Inc. v. Meridian
Construction & Development, LLC, the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama denied the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, which it supported by arguing the Plaintiff’s claims were barred
under Alabama’s statute of repose. 2020 WL 6712270.
Plaintiff Bristol Southside Association, Inc. (“Bristol”)
asserted several claims against Defendant Meridian Construction &
Development, LLC (“Meridian”) related to the construction of a condominium
development. Meridian was the general contractor for the development.
Architecture firm Hemsley Lamkin Rachel, Inc. (“HLR”) designed the development.
Members of HLR regularly inspected the development, while Meridian maintained
supervision of the development. After each inspection, HLR created Field
Reports that were issued to necessary parties, including Meridian. Construction
was completed in October 2006.
The development comprised two separate buildings, with
exterior cladding made of composite trim, fiber cement siding, brick veneer,
and three coat stucco. In 2017, the breezeways which provide access to each
unit began to collapse. Bristol investigated and determined that water flowed
behind the exterior claddings, the fiber cement had not been applied correctly,
and the stucco was not installed consistent with nationally accepted standards.
Further, load bearing columns were misaligned, causing them to fail and damage
the framing. HLR’s Field Reports, which
Meridian received, identified these issues during construction.
Bristol hired a licensed home inspector to perform an
assessment of the Field Reports and the issues later occurring at the
condominium. The Field Reports indicated that the waterproof coating was not
applied to necessary areas. They also indicated that the mortar for the brick
veneer was installed incorrectly, and that the mortar was not properly cleaned
during construction. The Field Reports also mandated that a one-inch rod be
installed between the stucco and the brick, which the inspector confirmed was
never completed. The Field Reports identified other construction issues that
the home inspector confirmed were never corrected.
Alabama has a two-year statute of limitations for the claims
Bristol brought against Meridian, and a seven-year statute of repose for claims
that relate to defect or deficiencies regarding construction. Meridian argued
that the statute of repose barred Bristol’s claims.
Bristol argued that neither the statute of limitations nor
the statute of repose applied because Meridian had actual knowledge of defects
leading to the damage and failed to disclose them. The Court agreed, finding
that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Meridian had actual
knowledge of the defects and misrepresented to Bristol that those defects had
been corrected. The Court denied Meridian’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Contractors performing work in Alabama should be aware that a statute of repose is not necessarily a bright-line rule. There are exceptions in instances where the claims relate to issues that were known prior to completion of construction. Contractors should be diligent about ensuring that issues identified during the course of construction are corrected prior to completion of the project.
