Lamprey v. Britton Construction, Inc., 37 A.3d 359

Plaintiff Lamprey hired Britton (general contractor), DeStefano (architect), and Sherwood (mason) to design/build her home.
Lamprey moved in November 2001 but never obtained a certificate of occupancy.
Water damage appeared within a year; Sherwood subsequently repaired terrace in 2006 and chimney in 2008.
In 2010 Lamprey sued for negligence and breaches of warranty; defendants moved to dismiss under statutes of limitations and repose.
Court considered discovery rule tolling and fraudulent concealment; Lamprey sought amendments to add claims and tolling theories.
Trial court dismissed under the statute of repose/limitations and denied amendment; appellate review followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal was proper under the statute of limitations	Lamprey argued discovery rule tolling applied	Defendants contended limitations barred action	No; discovery rule not established for all claims; partial tolling considered but not prevailed
Whether dismissal was proper under the statute of repose	Home was not substantially complete in 2001; tolling possible	Substantial completion occurred when Lamprey began living there (Nov 2001)	Barred by eight-year repose since filing in 2010 (outside eight years) unless tolling applicable
Whether fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of repose	Sherwood concealed defects to prevent discovery	Statements about repairs did not conceal material facts	As to alleged concealment of veneers, claims could be tolled; overall concealment failed for other parts; remand limited to veneer-related claims
Whether the motion to amend should have been granted	Amendment cured deficiencies and added new facts supporting concealment	Amendments were either insufficiently pleaded or new claims unjustified	Amendment allowed for stone veneer concealment theory; other amendments denied; DeStefano not revived
Whether claims against DeStefano, Britton, and Sherwood are appropriately addressed	Amended pleading revived some claims against Britton/Sherwood	Statute of repose barred others; some amendments improper for DeStefano	Affirmed in part, reversed in part; veneer-related amendments allowed; others barred

McNamara v. Hersh, 157 N.H. 72 (N.H. 2008) (test for dismissal on pleading sufficiency; favorable inference to plaintiff)
Beane v. Dana S. Beane & Co., 160 N.H. 708 (N.H. 2010) (discovery rule burden shifting in limitations analysis)
In the Matter of Jacobson & Tierney, 150 N.H. 513 (N.H. 2004) (statutory interpretation and de novo review of statutes)
Remington Invs. v. Howard, 150 N.H. 653 (N.H. 2004) (statutes construed and interpreted; standard of review applied)
Black Bear Lodge v. Trillium Corp., 136 N.H. 635 (N.H. 1993) (discovery rule applicability to such cases)
Furbush v. McKittrick, 149 N.H. 426 (N.H. 2003) (fraudulent concealment doctrine in limitations context)