Christie v. Hartley Construction, Inc.
367 N.C. 534
| N.C. | 2014Background
- Christies built a custom home in Orange County (2004) with Hartley Construction as builder-manager of a turnkey project using SIPs for exterior walls.
- GrailCoat Worldwide, LLC and GrailCo, Inc. (GrailCoat) marketed a twenty-year exterior cladding warranty for SuperFlex to cover the SIP exterior.
- Christies relied on GrailCoat’s online warranty representations to select SuperFlex and to contract with Hartley.
- Moisture intrusion, rot, and delamination of SIPs occurred years after application; GrailCoat claimed problems resulted from improper installation, not product defect.
- Plaintiffs filed suit 31 October 2011 alleging breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranties, negligence, and related claims; defendants moved for summary judgment; trial court granted in August 2012; Court of Appeals affirmed in a divided decision.
- Supreme Court granted discretionary review of additional issues and reversed in part, holding GrailCoat’s twenty-year warranty waived the six-year statute of repose and bound GrailCoat to the warranty’s full term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the six-year statute of repose bars damages for breach of express warranty. | Christie—repose bars damages; extended warranty irrelevant. | GrailCoat—warranty extends beyond repose and contracts may waive repose. | Repose can be waived by a warranty; damages may be recoverable under express warranty. |
| Whether GrailCoat’s twenty-year warranty is enforceable beyond the repose period. | Christie—warranty extended beyond repose should be enforceable. | GrailCoat—repose limits claims to six years; warranty void beyond that. | Contractual warranty extended beyond six years is enforceable; GrailCoat waived repose. |
| Whether the public policy supports allowing parties to contract away the repose period. | Public policy supports freedom to contract and warranty terms. | Public policy protects repose as a substantive limiter. | Public policy does not bar waiver of repose when expressly agreed in a warranty. |
| Remedies for breach of express warranty when repose is waived. | Damages for breach of express warranty should be available. | Remedies limited by Roemer to non-damages relief. | Express warranty breach allows damages; full warranty remains enforceable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roemer v. Preferred Roofing, Inc., 190 N.C. App. 813 (2008) (addressed whether repose interacts with an express lifetime warranty in a way that limits remedies)
- Bolick v. Am. Barmag Corp., 306 N.C. 364 (1982) (distinguishes statutes of repose from limitations; equitable defenses)
- CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2175 (2014) (distinguishes repose from limitations; federal perspective on governing rules)
- Hall v. Sinclair Ref. Co., 242 N.C. 707, 89 S.E.2d 396 (1955) (principles on freedom to contract and public policy)
- Forsyth Mem’l Hosp., Inc. v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 336 N.C. 438, 444 S.E.2d 423 (1994) (repose applies to defective or unsafe improvements to real property)
- Trs. of Rowan Technical Coll. v. J. Hyatt Hammond Assocs., 313 N.C. 230, 328 S.E.2d 274 (1985) (context on accrual and limitations principles)
- Monson v. Paramount Homes, Inc., 133 N.C. App. 235, 515 S.E.2d 445 (1999) (equitable tolling and limitations discussions)