2:18-cv-00022
D.S.C.Feb 17, 2021Background
- Pier View Condominium Association sued Johns Manville (JM) alleging the JM‑specified 2‑ply insulated SBS roofing system (installed c.2005–2008) was defective, untested for wind uplift, and leaked; claims included negligence/gross negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, strict liability, reformation, and breach of contract.
- The roofing system depended on mechanical fasteners into 7/16" OSB decking (not JM’s 1/2" plywood requirement); JM’s contractor services manager recommended retrofit insulation and an increased fastener pattern to qualify for JM’s 20‑year Peak Advantage Guarantee.
- JM’s local technician performed multiple site inspections, approved the roof for warranty in July 2008, and JM issued the Guarantee to the Developer (125 Pier View LP) on July 29, 2008.
- Post‑construction destructive testing (during a related state action) revealed allegedly inadequate fastener density; JM cancelled the Guarantee on May 5, 2016 for failure to timely transfer the Guarantee from the Developer to Pier View.
- Pier View filed this federal action in October 2017. Motions before the court: Pier View’s partial summary judgment (negligence and implied warranty); JM’s summary judgment, JM’s Daubert motion to exclude experts, and JM’s motion to compel settlement documents from a related case.
- District court: granted JM summary judgment in part (dismissing most claims under SC statute of repose), denied JM summary judgment as to breach of express warranty and gross negligence, denied Pier View’s partial summary judgment, denied the Daubert motion without prejudice, and ordered in camera production of related settlement documents.
Issues
| Issue | Pier View's Argument | Johns Manville's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of SC statute of repose to claims | The 20‑year Guarantee and gross negligence exception keep claims viable beyond 8 years | Most claims are time‑barred by the 8‑year repose from substantial completion (certificates issued by Apr 1, 2008) | Repose bars all claims except breach of express warranty (if warranty applies) and gross negligence; JM SJ granted in part and Pier View SJ denied |
| Breach of express warranty — transfer & timeliness | Guarantee was transferred/reinstated in 2016 and Plaintiff’s Oct 2017 suit is timely | Guarantee remained with Developer; absent transfer Pier View lacks rights and claim is time‑barred by 3‑yr limitations | Genuine factual dispute whether transfer/reinstatement occurred; SJ denied as to express warranty (could be timely if transfer proved) |
| Gross negligence — duty, discovery, repose exception | JM failed to perform required wind‑uplift testing and directed changed fastener patterns but inspections approved the system; these facts permit a gross negligence theory not subject to repose | Pier View knew or should have known by 2013 (discovery rule) and claims are time‑barred; JM’s inspections were for JM’s benefit and imposed no duty to Plaintiff | Genuine disputes on duty, testing, and discoverability; gross negligence claim survives (statute of repose exception applies); SJ denied on this claim |
| Exclusion of Pier View’s experts (Daubert) | Experts opine system is non‑code compliant and estimate replacement costs | Experts unreliable: no tested alternative design, did not isolate leak causes, and relied on legal conclusions | Daubert motion denied without prejudice; experts not excluded at this stage but JM may renew objections at trial or via motion in limine |
| Compel production of settlement documents from related case | (Plaintiff produced some materials) | JM sought related settlements for potential overlap and offset | Motion to compel granted in part: Court ordered Pier View to produce requested settlement information for in camera review within 14 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (materiality and genuine issue standards at summary judgment)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (trial judge's gatekeeping on expert admissibility)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert gatekeeping applies to non‑scientific experts)
- Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355 (4th Cir. discussion of genuine issues)
- G & P Trucking v. Parks Auto Sales Svc. & Salvage, Inc., 591 S.E.2d 42 (SC treatment of statute of repose as not subject to tolling)
- Faile v. South Carolina Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, 566 S.E.2d 536 (gross negligence generally a jury question)