Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reinforces the Finality of the Construction Statute of Repose

Time does run against “the king” when there is a construction statute of repose at issue per the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding in Clearfield County v. Transystems, et al. issued on Apr. 30th.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court solidified the application of the construction statute of repose in a detailed 30-page majority opinion in Clearfield County.  The dispute “turn[ed] on” whether Clearfield County could invoke the doctrine of nullus tempus – translated as “no time runs against the king” – to avoid application of the 12-year construction statute of repose codified in Section 5536 of the Judicial Code.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s affirmance of the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County’s order sustaining preliminary objections which dismissed a complaint by Clearfield County against construction industry professionals who allegedly defectively designed and/or constructed the roof of the County’s jail in or about 1977.  At the trial court level, Clearfield County argued that public entities are exempt from the 12-year construction statute of repose because of the doctrine of nullus tempus.  The trial court, Commonwealth Court, and Supreme Court disagreed – but for slightly different reasons.

The Supreme Court expressly held that the doctrine of nullum tempus did not permit the County to avoid the construction statute of repose because nullus tempus is a tolling doctrine and the construction statute of repose simply is not subject to tolling.  By rendering such a decision, the Supreme Court effectively ended any further argument that any tolling doctrines apply to the construction statute of repose by emphasizing that the legislature decided that the “public interest is best served by eliminating the liability of construction industry professionals after 12 years, regardless of the reason an injured party was unable to bring suit within 12 years from the completion of construction.”

Clark Hill PLC previously authored an article on the construction statute of repose, Pennsylvania’s Home Inspection Law, and the October 23, 2025 Pennsylvania Supreme Court majority opinion in Gidor v. Mangus, observing that the Supreme Court emboldened judicial support for statutes of repose because 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.

Notably, there remains one other case garnering attention relating to the construction statute of repose 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.  For now, the Supreme Court precedence makes clear that the construction repose period is a concrete legislative boundary which eradicates all claims, notwithstanding otherwise available doctrines.  The Clearfield County and Gidor decisions provide clarity for construction professionals and others in the industry in defending claims which can rely upon the construction statute of repose as a viable defense.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.