PIH Beaverton, LLC v. Super One, Inc.
323 P.3d 961
| Or. | 2014Background
- PIH Beaverton, LLC sues Super One, Inc. over hotel construction completed in 1997; VIP’s posted a completion notice and opened temporarily in 1997, but final occupancy occurred later.
- Plaintiff purchased the hotel in 2006 and discovered damage, bringing negligence/nuisance/trespass claims related to construction.
- ORS 12.135 provides a 10-year repose from substantial completion or abandonment; controversy over when substantial completion occurred for the hotel.
- Court of Appeals held there were disputed facts about the completion date; summary judgment was inappropriate.
- Oregon Supreme Court held that completion notices under ORS 87.045 do not automatically satisfy ORS 12.135(3)’s “acceptance” requirement and that whether completion was reached requires facts; case remanded for further proceedings.
- Court’s decision clarifies two paths to substantial completion: written acceptance (substantial completion) or acceptance of completed construction (fully complete); completion notice alone may not prove either date
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a completion notice under ORS 87.045 prove written acceptance for ORS 12.135(3)? | Beaverton: no, notice alone does not equal acceptance. | Super One: yes, notice demonstrates acceptance for purposes of repose. | Not determinative; facts disputed; notice alone not conclusive |
| If no written acceptance exists, must the owner’s actual acceptance of completed construction establish substantial completion? | Beaverton: factual questions; material completion date disputed. | Super One: owner’s nonwritten acceptance can still trigger substantial completion. | Question of law unresolved; factual dispute requires remand |
| Are there two distinct dates for substantial completion under ORS 12.135(3)? | Beaverton: references two dates (written acceptance vs full completion) not conflated. | Super One: statute contemplates one definable date via acceptance. | Two-date framework recognized; factual evidence needed to resolve which date applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Sunset Presbyterian Church v. Brockamp & Jaeger, Inc., 355 Or 286 (Or. 2014) (discusses ORS 12.135 timing and two-paths to substantial completion)