Gilroy v. SVF Riva Annapolis LLC
168 A.3d 1130
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Sean McLaughlin died after falling while repairing an HVAC unit on the roof of a restaurant in a shopping center; suit alleges negligence and premises liability against the center owner (SVF Riva), manager (Rappaport), and tenant/operator (CEC).
- Plaintiffs originally filed in federal court; that action was dismissed without prejudice and plaintiffs re-filed in Anne Arundel Circuit Court more than three years after McLaughlin’s death.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment (CEC also moved to dismiss), arguing among other grounds that Maryland’s statute of repose, CJP § 5-108, barred the claims.
- The circuit court granted judgment for defendants, holding § 5-108(d) should be read conjunctively so its exceptions are limited to asbestos-related claims.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed, concluding § 5-108(d)(2) lists four independent exceptions (one for persons in actual possession/control and three asbestos-specific exceptions) and remanded for further proceedings on other defenses (contributory negligence, wrongful-death timing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CJP § 5-108(d)(2)(i) (defendant in actual possession/control) is limited to asbestos claims | The possession/control exception is independent and applies generally to owners, tenants, or others in control when injury occurred | The subsection’s exceptions are to be read conjunctively (linked by “or”) and the 1991 amendments limit all (d)(2) exceptions to asbestos-related claims | The court held the four subparts of § 5-108(d)(2) are independent; (d)(2)(i) is not limited to asbestos claims and can exempt defendants in possession/control from the statute of repose |
| Proper statutory construction of “or” in § 5-108(d)(2) | “Or” is disjunctive; legislative history and text support independent exceptions | “Or” should be read conjunctively given structure/headings, yielding a single asbestos-limited exception | The court interpreted “or” disjunctively in context; conjunctive reading would produce absurd, meaningless results and contradict legislative history |
| Role of 1991 asbestos amendments on pre-existing possession exception | 1991 amendments added asbestos-specific exceptions without altering the longstanding possession exception | 1991 amendments demonstrate subsection (d) is asbestos-focused and narrowed the possession exception | The court found legislative history shows the 1991 amendments added independent asbestos exceptions and did not eliminate or narrow the existing possession/control exception |
| Weight of prior decisions (Rose, Hagerstown Elderly) | Rose supports independent treatment of (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii)-(iv) | Reliance on Hagerstown Elderly dicta to support asbestos-limited reading | The court favored Rose’s detailed statutory analysis over Hagerstown Elderly’s brief dicta and followed Rose’s approach |
Key Cases Cited
- Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. Coupard, 304 Md. 340 (describing purpose of statute of repose limiting post-completion liability)
- Rose v. Fox Pool Corp., 335 Md. 351 (comprehensive analysis of § 5-108; treated possession exception separately from asbestos exceptions)
- Hagerstown Elderly Assocs. v. Hagerstown Elderly Bldg. Assocs., 368 Md. 351 (discussed § 5-108(d) in a footnote; treated asbestos exception as inapplicable there)
- Anderson v. United States, 427 Md. 99 (explains statutes of repose and their effect)
- Phillips v. State, 451 Md. 180 (reciting principles of statutory construction and legislative intent)