Christie v. Hartley Construction, Inc., 745 S.E.2d 60

Plaintiffs George and Deborah Christie sued Hartley Construction, GrailCoat Worldwide, and GrailCo, Inc. for construction defects in their 2004-constructed Chapel Hill residence.
GrailCoat allegedly made express warranties about a direct-applied exterior finish system installed over SIPs, claiming long-lasting, waterproof, and 20-year warranty claims on GrailCoat’s website.
Plaintiffs alleged water intrusion caused rot and delamination, compromising structural integrity and violating building codes and industry standards.
Plaintiffs asserted claims against Hartley (contract, implied warranty, negligence, gross negligence, unfair/ deceptive trade practices) and against GrailCoat (express warranty, implied warranties, negligence, unfair/deceptive trade practices).
The Certificate of Occupancy was issued on March 22, 2005, indicating substantial completion prior to the alleged defects and triggering the six-year repose window.
The trial court granted summary judgment based on the six-year statute of repose, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice; plaintiffs appealed the GrailCoat-related ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the six-year statute of repose bars plaintiffs’ action despite warranties.	Plaintiffs argue warranty extends filing period.	Roemer and the six-year repose bar claims regardless of warranty.	Yes, action barred by statute of repose.

Roemer v. Preferred Roofing, 190 N.C. App. 813, 660 S.E.2d 920 (2008) (lifetime warranty does not extend repose period for damages)
Dawson v. N.C. Dep’t of Env’t & Natural Res., 204 N.C. App. 524, 694 S.E.2d 427 (2010) (statute of repose is a substantive limitation; question of law for expiration)
Glens of Ironduff Prop. Owners Ass’n v. Daly, N.C. App. (2012) (repose expiration shown by pleadings/evidence; no genuine issue)
Black v. Littlejohn, 312 N.C. 626, 325 S.E.2d 469 (1985) (describes effect of statute of repose as absolute barrier)