450 P.3d 114
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- Condominium project with nine buildings; certificates of occupancy issued between May 2, 2007 and June 9, 2009 (final CO: June 9, 2009).
- Owner filed suit against general contractor Blueridge on December 22, 2014; Blueridge was served February 13, 2015.
- Blueridge filed a third-party complaint against several subcontractors on July 15, 2015 seeking indemnity/contribution for the alleged defects.
- The Builders’ Statute of Repose (six years from completion) ran June 9, 2015; subcontractors moved to dismiss/for summary judgment as time-barred.
- District court dismissed Blueridge’s third-party claims as barred by the statute of repose, refusing to treat the third-party pleading as relating back to the original complaint; it also denied Blueridge’s motions for reconsideration raising new issues.
- Blueridge appealed; the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed (statute of repose bars third-party claims; denial of reconsideration not an abuse of discretion).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Blueridge’s third-party complaint relates back to the original complaint so as to survive the Builders’ Statute of Repose | Blueridge: Rule 14 permits filing a third-party complaint at any time and it should relate back to the original complaint, avoiding the repose bar | Appellees: Relation-back does not apply to pleadings that add new parties; Rule 14’s timing does not defeat an affirmative repose defense | Held: Third-party claims are time-barred. Relation-back does not apply because the third-party pleading added new parties; Rule 14 does not immunize such claims from the statute of repose |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Blueridge’s motions for reconsideration (arguments: multiple COs, exception to repose, as-applied unconstitutionality) | Blueridge: New evidence (three COs for one building) and legal arguments created issues that should preclude dismissal or warrant reconsideration | Appellees: The evidence and legal arguments were available earlier and not new; reconsideration was properly denied as an attempt to relitigate | Held: No abuse of discretion. The materials/arguments were not new and could have been raised earlier; district court properly refused a do-over |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. Pioneer Wholesale Supply Co., 681 P.2d 214 (Utah 1984) (relation-back doctrine does not apply where an amendment or pleading adds new parties with no identity of interest)
- Sharon Steel Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 931 P.2d 127 (Utah 1997) (crossclaim related back where the same parties were already before the court)
- Gables & Villas at River Oaks Homeowners Ass’n v. Castlewood Builders, LLC, 422 P.3d 826 (Utah 2018) (claims time-barred where complaint did not relate back to a timely pleading)
- Raithaus v. Saab-Scandia of Am., Inc., 784 P.2d 1158 (Utah 1989) (statute of repose is an affirmative defense)
- Choate v. United States, 233 F. Supp. 463 (W.D. Okla. 1964) (statute of limitations/repose can be asserted as a defense to third-party claims)