Goodwin v. Kingsmen Plastering, Inc.
359 Or. 694
Or.2016Background
- Home built in 2001; Kingsmen Plastering (subcontractor) installed synthetic stucco siding completed May 2001.
- Goodwins bought the house in December 2004 and alleged in a March 2011 complaint that siding defects caused water intrusion and property damage; they claimed discovery in May 2010.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the claims were time-barred; trial court concluded ORS 12.080(3)’s six-year period applied and (without a discovery rule) barred the suit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding ORS 12.080(3) applied and that it was subject to a discovery rule, remanding for factual determination of discovery date.
- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the trial court (affirming the Court of Appeals’ reversal) but on different grounds: it held construction-defect claims for damage to the property itself are governed by ORS 12.110(1)’s two-year tort limitations (with a discovery rule), not by ORS 12.080(3)’s six-year "interest in real property" limitation; remanded for factual findings on discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations governs construction-defect claims for property damage arising from construction of an improvement to real property? | Goodwin: ORS 12.080(3) six-year period for injury to an "interest in real property" applies to their negligence claim. | Kingsmen: ORS 12.080(3) applies only to injuries to legal/equitable "interests" (e.g., trespass, waste); damage to property itself is governed by ORS 12.110(1) two-year period. | Held: ORS 12.110(1) two-year tort limitations governs damage to the property itself; ORS 12.080(3) covers injury to an "interest," not ordinary property damage. |
| Whether the applicable limitations period is triggered by discovery (i.e., whether a discovery rule applies)? | Goodwin: Even if six-year period applied, it is subject to a discovery rule; their suit timely if discovery was May 2010. | Kingsmen: Trial court treated statutory period as running from completion of work (no discovery rule for ORS 12.080(3)). | Held: The two-year limitations period (ORS 12.110) governing property-damage torts is subject to a discovery rule; remand to determine when plaintiffs discovered or should have discovered the injury. |
| Effect of ORS 12.135(1)(a) (construction-improvement provision) on which limitations period applies | Goodwin: Legislative changes effectively made ORS 12.080(3) control construction defect claims. | Kingsmen: ORS 12.135(1)(a) defers to the "applicable period otherwise established by law," so the period depends on the nature of the claim (contract v. tort). | Held: ORS 12.135(1)(a) means the applicable statute depends on the legal nature of the claim; it does not convert all construction-defect claims into six-year actions. |
| Whether Beveridge and legislative history require treating construction-damage claims as six-year matters | Goodwin: Cites Beveridge and selective legislative-history snippets to argue six-year rule applies. | Kingsmen: Beveridge is narrow—applies where plaintiff had an "interest" (contractual) in property; legislative history shows 1983 and 1991 amendments did not abolish a two-year rule for tort-based property damage. | Held: Beveridge does not broadly convert property-damage torts into six-year claims; statutory text and legislative history support the court’s two-year/tort distinction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beveridge v. King, 292 Or. 771 (statute 12.080(3) applied narrowly where plaintiffs had contractual "interest" in property)
- Reynolds Metals Co. v. Martin, 221 Or. 86 (distinction between trespass/waste (six-year) and non-trespassory property damage (two-year))
- Securities-Intermountain v. Sunset Fuel, 289 Or. 243 (historical development of limitations statutes; torts generally two-year)
- Abraham v. T. Henry Constr., Inc., 350 Or. 29 (statement that tort claims from house construction are governed by ORS 12.110 two-year rule)
- Rice v. Rabb, 354 Or. 721 (discovery-rule analysis relevant to limitations questions)
- Shell v. Schollander Cos., 358 Or. 552 (interpretation of ORS 12.135 as starting point for construction-defect limitation questions)