John C. Abajian, M.D. and Margaret C. Abajian v. TruexCullins, Inc. and Thermal Efficiency Construction, Ltd.
176 A.3d 524
Vt.2017Background
- In 2001 plaintiffs (John and Margaret Abajian) had a metal standing-seam roof installed after hiring TruexCullins (architect) and Thermal Efficiency Construction (TEC) as contractor; Murphy’s performed the roofing work.
- Soon after installation plaintiffs experienced ice damming and leaking; they filed an insurance claim for interior damage and attempted repairs (caulking seams, installing and relocating snow guards, painting rust spots).
- By 2005 rust spots had appeared, ice-damming was worse, and plaintiffs described the roof as “failing.” They intermittently noticed additional leaks through 2012.
- Major interior leaks occurred in winter 2012–13; in summer 2014 a contractor removed panels and found widespread underside corrosion and rotted underlayment.
- Plaintiffs sued TruexCullins and TEC in November 2014 for negligence and breach of contract; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the six-year statute of limitations barred the claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding plaintiffs were on inquiry notice no later than 2005; the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the cause of action accrue for statute-of-limitations purposes? | Accrual did not occur until 2012–14 when major leaks and underlying corrosion were discovered; plaintiffs lacked expertise to know earlier. | Accrual occurred by 2005 at the latest because plaintiffs observed leaks, rust, worsening ice dams, and undertook repairs — facts that put them on inquiry notice. | Held: Accrued by 2005; statute of limitations ran before the 2014 complaint. |
| Whether accrual is a question for the jury or court on summary judgment | Jury should decide because factual dispute exists about when plaintiffs were on inquiry notice. | Court may decide accrual as a matter of law where undisputed facts leave no reasonable dispute. | Held: Court properly decided accrual as a matter of law given undisputed facts. |
| Whether later discovery of the precise defect restarts accrual | Plaintiffs: discovery of the precise cause in 2014 created a new accrual date. | Defendants: later discovery of extent does not create new cause; earlier notice of a defective roof starts limitations. | Held: Later discovery of extent does not create a new claim; initial inquiry notice starts limitations. |
| Whether the plaintiffs exercised reasonable diligence after noticing problems | Plaintiffs: attempted some repairs but lacked expertise to investigate cause; therefore diligence was insufficient or impracticable. | Defendants: plaintiffs’ own actions and admissions (insurance claim, repairs, calling roofers, stating roof was "failing") show they had notice and should have investigated further. | Held: Plaintiffs had sufficient facts by 2005 to trigger a duty to investigate; their subsequent inaction does not toll limitations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lench v. Union School Dist. No. 20, 134 Vt. 424 (Vt. 1976) (discovery rule: accrual upon facts that put a reasonable person on inquiry; roof leaks put plaintiff on notice)
- Gallipo v. City of Rutland, 178 Vt. 244 (Vt. 2005) (summary-judgment standard on appeal)
- Glassford v. Dufresne & Assocs., P.C., 199 Vt. 422 (Vt. 2015) (summary judgment standard; viewing evidence for nonmoving party)
- Rodrigue v. VALCO Enters., Inc., 169 Vt. 539 (Vt. 1999) (limitations begin when inquiry notice exists; plaintiff need not have airtight case)
- Pembee Mfg. Corp. v. Cape Fear Const. Co., 329 S.E.2d 350 (N.C. 1985) (subsequent discovery of greater damage aggravates original injury; does not create new cause of action)
- John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc. v. Acorn Window Sys., Inc., 394 F.3d 607 (8th Cir. 2005) (knowledge of water intrusion and repairs put owner on inquiry notice; summary judgment affirmed)