Gades v. Meyer Modernizing Co.
2015 SD 42
| S.D. | 2015Background
- In 2000 the Gadeses built a home using Enercept SIPs; Master Builders installed windows/doors/house wrap and Meyer was hired to install siding, soffits, and gutters but the estimate did not mention flashing around windows/doors.
- The house was substantially complete and occupied in late 2000.
- Starting in 2001 (Blair) and by 2002 (Lynn at the latest) the Gadeses experienced recurring water infiltration at window/door openings each year thereafter; they performed no corrective repairs.
- The Gadeses retained counsel by April 11, 2005 but did not sue until April 2010 (amending the complaint in 2013 to add an allegation that Meyer concealed the lack of flashing).
- Meyer moved for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds; the circuit court granted summary judgment, finding the claim time-barred. The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the Gadeses' cause of action accrue for statute of limitations purposes? | Accrual is disputed; claim didn't accrue until they discovered absence of flashing (allegedly not until Oct 2013) | Accrual occurred when water infiltration was first noticed (2001–2002); six‑year limitations period had run before suit in 2010 | Claim accrued by at least 2002 based on repeated, obvious water infiltration; action filed in 2010 was time‑barred |
| Does fraudulent concealment by Meyer toll the limitations period? | Meyer allegedly knew there was no flashing and affirmatively concealed that fact (insisted J‑channel was sufficient), so tolling applies | No confidential/fiduciary relationship and no affirmative concealment that prevented discovery; plaintiffs were already on notice from water intrusion | Tolling does not apply because plaintiffs were already on notice by 2002; concealment cannot toll where plaintiff had constructive/actual notice |
| Did factual disputes preclude summary judgment? | There are genuine disputes about when plaintiffs discovered the absence of flashing and whether Meyer performed additional work around 2004–05 | Material facts are admitted (by failure to controvert) showing earlier notice; no disputed fact defeats statutory‑bar defense | No genuine issue of material fact as to accrual; summary judgment appropriate |
| Can the 10‑year repose statute extend filing time beyond six‑year limitations? | Plaintiffs suggest construction‑defect repose might apply to make claim timely | Repose does not extend a limitations period or allow filing after limitations has run | Repose statute does not extend the six‑year limitations period; it does not save a claim already barred by limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- E. Side Lutheran Church of Sioux Falls v. NEXT, Inc., 852 N.W.2d 434 (S.D. 2014) (actual or constructive notice of water infiltration starts accrual for related claims)
- Strassburg v. Citizens State Bank, 581 N.W.2d 510 (S.D. 1998) (fraudulent concealment requires affirmative act preventing discovery; concealment does not toll if plaintiff already on notice)
- Cleveland v. BDL Enters., Inc., 663 N.W.2d 212 (S.D. 2003) (fiduciary duty not implied in ordinary arm’s‑length business relationships)
- Peters v. Great W. Bank, Inc., 859 N.W.2d 618 (S.D. 2015) (summary judgment standard and view of facts in favor of nonmoving party)
- Koenig v. Lambert, 527 N.W.2d 903 (S.D. 1995) (fraudulent concealment tolling principles)
- Peterson ex rel. Peterson v. Burns, 635 N.W.2d 556 (S.D. 2001) (statute of repose does not extend limitations period)
- United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1979) (policy favoring repose over stale claims)