Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, Inc.
249 P.3d 534
| Or. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs, as trustees for a house-owning trust, contracted with Lucas as general contractor and Mayo for framing to complete their home.
- The house was substantially completed by January 1998; plaintiffs later discovered extensive water damage, including rot to sheathing and framing.
- Plaintiffs filed suit claiming breach of contract and negligence, alleging damage from defendants' defective workmanship and code violations.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment: contract claim barred by a six-year statute of limitations; no independent tort duty without a special relationship.
- Court of Appeals reversed on negligence, holding building-code standards could create an independent duty; trial court judgment on contract claim stood.
- Supreme Court affirmed, holding common-law negligence claims may lie alongside contract claims where the contract does not alter or eliminate the duty to avoid foreseeable property damage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can property damage from construction defects support a tort claim alongside contract? | Abraham | Lucas | Yes; tort claim allowed if independent duty to avoid foreseeable harm exists |
| Does a special relationship or statutory standard of care limit tort claims between contracting parties? | Abraham | Lucas | Neither is required here; common-law negligence may apply absent waiver by contract |
| Does the building code create an independent standard of care for tort claims in this contract? | Abraham | Lucas | Yes; building-code compliance can support a negligence claim independent of contract |
| Does Georgetown Realty require a special relationship to support tort liability in contractual contexts? | Abraham | Lucas | Georgetown's standard is broader here; independent noncontractual duty suffices |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Suniga, 344 Or. 301 (2008) (recognizes property damage from construction defects as actionable in negligence)
- Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or. 1 (1987) (framework: contract vs. tort duty depends on whether a noncontractual duty exists)
- Georgetown Realty v. The Home Ins. Co., 313 Or. 97 (1992) (balances contract remedies with independent standards of care; allows negligence if independent standard exists)
- Securities-Intermountain v. Sunset Fuel, 289 Or. 243 (1980) (establishes that mere incorporation of general skill does not extinguish noncontractual duties)
- Estey v. MacKenzie Engineering Inc., 324 Or. 372 (1996) (contract will not immunize negligent conduct unless clearly intended)