Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reinforces Statutes of Repose in Gidor v. Mangus

In Pennsylvania, statutes of repose materialized in the 1960s in large part as a result of the construction industry’s concerns with respect to ongoing liability for latent defects. Pennsylvania’s Home Inspection Law provides that an action to recover monetary damages arising from a home inspection report must be brought within one year after the date the report is delivered. On Oct. 23rd, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a majority opinion in Gidor v. Mangus, which emboldened judicial support for the Home Inspection Law – and other existing statutes of repose. The Court Gidor affirmed the lower court in holding that home inspectors in Pennsylvania are protected by a one-year statute of repose pursuant to the “plain language” of the Home Inspection Law regardless of when the claim accrues.

The practical effect of the Gidor decision is that any lawsuit against a home inspector must be filed within one year of the inspection, regardless of when the underlying issue and/or problem is discovered. In other words, common legal doctrines known as equitable tolling and/or the discovery rule do not apply to such claims. The Court thus strengthened the construction industry’s general stance that a repose period is a concrete legislative boundary which eradicates all claims, notwithstanding otherwise available tolling doctrines.

The Gidor decision is particularly favorable to the construction industry in Pennsylvania, as the Court relied upon prior decisions interpreting the Construction Statute of Repose, providing that a party bringing an action against a party for “lawfully performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision or observation of construction, or construction of any improvement to real property must be commenced within 12 years after completion of construction.” Notably, however, there are currently two other cases garnering attention relating to the Construction Statute of Repose and currently pending appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Aloia v. Diament (where the plaintiffs argue, inter alia, that alleged violations of the building code toll the Construction Statute of Repose because the work was not “lawfully” done) and Clearfield County v. Transystems (where the County argues that public entities are exempt from the Construction Statute of Repose).

The Gidor decision and its rationale provides an important tool for construction professionals and others in the industry in defending claims which have an underlying statute of repose. However, the bounds of statutes of repose continue to be a topic of dispute, and any limitations may be determined by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Aloia and Clearfield County. Thus, it is important for those in Pennsylvania’s construction industry to stay current on this evolving area of the law.