Hanson v. Dabbert Custom Homes, et al., 20260023

Background

Hanson bought a new home from Dabbert in November 2014 and received a one-year warranty; the city issued a certificate of occupancy in February 2015. 1
Soon after moving in, Hanson observed severe cold, frost buildup, and drafts in the northwest area and complained to the Home Builders Association in spring 2015. 2
On December 28, 2015, Hanson emailed Dabbert requesting an insulation check in the upper northwest corner, and Dabbert and its subcontractor later performed inspections and repairs. 3
In August 2020, Dabbert proposed a release and further remediation work, but the agreement was never signed. 4
An independent 2022 inspection found missing or insufficient insulation and related damage, and Hanson sued on July 5, 2022. 5
The district court granted summary judgment for Dabbert, holding the claims time-barred and rejecting forfeiture and equitable estoppel. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Dabbert waive its statute-of-limitations defense? 7	Hanson said Dabbert waived or forfeited the defense by litigating and filing third-party claims.	Dabbert timely pleaded the defense in its answer.	No waiver; the defense was preserved. 8
Did Dabbert forfeit the defense through litigation conduct? 9	Hanson argued Dabbert’s discovery and third-party complaint were inconsistent with limitations defense.	Dabbert said its conduct was ordinary litigation strategy and timely summary-judgment practice.	No forfeiture; the conduct was not fundamentally inconsistent. 10
When did Hanson’s claims accrue under the discovery rule? 11	Hanson claimed accrual was disputed because he lacked certainty until 2022 expert testing.	Dabbert said Hanson had inquiry notice by December 28, 2015.	Accrual occurred by December 28, 2015; the suit was untimely. 12
Does equitable estoppel bar Dabbert’s limitations defense? 13	Hanson argued Dabbert’s repairs and assurances induced him to delay suit.	Dabbert said its repair efforts and settlement talks were good-faith responses, not lulling conduct.	No equitable estoppel. 14
Did Dabbert have a duty to disclose a concealed defect? 15	Hanson said nondisclosure and post-warranty conduct triggered the duty-to-disclose exception.	Dabbert said it lacked unique knowledge and the parties were not in a confidential relationship.	No duty-to-disclose exception applied. 16

Key Cases Cited

Gustafson v. Poitra, 755 N.W.2d 479 (N.D. 2008) (waiver of statute-of-limitations defense by failure to plead it 17)
Simmons v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc., 969 N.W.2d 442 (N.D. 2022) (summary judgment reviewed de novo 18)
Johnston Law Off., P.C. v. Brakke, 919 N.W.2d 733 (N.D. 2018) (summary judgment appropriate when no genuine issues of material fact exist 19)
Hebron Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 13 of Morton Cnty. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 475 N.W.2d 120 (N.D. 1991) (North Dakota discovery rule for accrual of contract claims 20)
Wells v. First Am. Bank W., 598 N.W.2d 834 (N.D. 1999) (discovery rule asks when plaintiff knew or should have known of wrong and injury 21)
Riemers v. Omdahl, 687 N.W.2d 445 (N.D. 2004) (objective notice standard for accrual under the discovery rule 22)
Solberg v. McKennett, 956 N.W.2d 767 (N.D. 2021) (discovery rule does not require full knowledge of injury extent 23)
Froysland v. Altenburg, 439 N.W.2d 797 (N.D. 1989) (accrual becomes a question of law when reasonable minds can reach only one conclusion 24)
Muhammed v. Welch, 675 N.W.2d 402 (N.D. 2004) (equitable estoppel elements and duty-to-disclose exception 25)
Burr v. Trinity Med. Ctr., 492 N.W.2d 904 (N.D. 1992) (elements of equitable estoppel against a limitations defense 26)
Superior, Inc. v. Behlen Mfg. Co., 738 N.W.2d 19 (N.D. 2007) (mere settlement discussions do not create equitable estoppel 27)
Schmidt v. Grand Forks Country Club, 460 N.W.2d 125 (N.D. 1990) (conduct must naturally induce belief that claim would be adjusted without suit 28)
Huber v. Oliver Cnty., 529 N.W.2d 179 (N.D. 1995) (negotiations create estoppel only when calculated to induce no suit 29)