Crest Condominium Association v. Royal Plus, Inc.
S16C-10-025 RFS
| Del. Super. Ct. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- The Crest Condominium Association and unit owner Judith Jeffcott sued contractors and subcontractors after water intrusion and structural balcony failures were discovered following 2010 fire repairs and subsequent reconstruction work.
- The Association hired Royal Plus to oversee repairs; MAD Engineering prepared reconstruction plans after broader structural problems were found. Coldiron and Shore were subcontractors on the balcony work.
- MAD notified the Association in January and August 2012 about nonconforming fascia and potential tile-related water infiltration; Coldiron reworked balconies and told the Association in May 2012 the problem was fixed.
- Home Inspection Technologies investigated in November 2014 and issued a report in November 2015 documenting extensive defects, water damage, rot, and mold; plaintiffs have spent about $187,250 in repairs.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the three-year statute of limitations for property damage claims accrued in 2012 (latest August 28, 2012) and the 2016 complaint was time-barred; Royal Plus also argued no contract/duty existed for the balcony work.
- Plaintiffs argued tolling via inherently unknowable injury and fraudulent concealment (reliance on Coldiron’s assurances and alleged misleading acts), plus that discovery was incomplete; the court deferred summary judgment pending discovery because genuine factual disputes remain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the statute of limitations accrue? | Accrual tolled until discovery/inquiry notice (earliest Nov 7, 2014); May/2012 representations kept plaintiffs ignorant. | Accrual occurred by May 6, 2012 (repairs completed) or at latest Aug 28, 2012 (MAD letter); complaint filed too late. | Court found factual disputes about accrual/tolling; could not decide on summary judgment. |
| Application of inherently unknowable injury doctrine | Injury was not observable after Coldiron said repairs were fixed; plaintiffs blamelessly relied on contractor/expert. | Plaintiffs had access to inspections, letters, and knew enough to investigate in 2012; objectively discoverable signs existed. | Court held triable factual questions exist whether plaintiffs were blamelessly ignorant; denied summary resolution. |
| Fraudulent concealment tolling | Coldiron made affirmative misrepresentations and repairs, which delayed discovery and tolled limitations. | No concealment: work was supervised by MAD; any alleged concealment would be by MAD, and plaintiffs still had letters prompting inquiry. | Court found factual disputes on concealment sufficient to preclude summary judgment. |
| Sufficiency of claim against Royal Plus (duty/contract) | Royal Plus supervised/oversaw balcony reconstruction (on-site supervisor, submitted proposals, coordinated inspections) creating duty and possible liability. | Royal Plus only supervised initial fire remediation; no contract for balconies beyond limited acts (e.g., unlocking door). | Court concluded factual issues about Royal Plus’s role exist and are not resolvable on summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. AIG Life Ins. Co., 860 A.2d 312 (Del. 2004) (Delaware accrual rule: cause of action accrues at time of wrongful act even if plaintiff is ignorant)
- Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679 (Del. 1979) (summary judgment standard and movant’s initial burden)
- Merrill v. Crothall-American, Inc., 606 A.2d 96 (Del. 1992) (burden shifts to nonmoving party once movant meets initial showing)
- Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467 (Del. 1962) (summary judgment refusal where material facts are disputed or further inquiry is desirable)