421 P.3d 1074
Wyo.2018Background
- Pioneer Homestead (nonprofit) built a 25-unit modular apartment building (PH III); Sargent Engineers prepared structural plans (stamped June 1, 2004); occupancy issued August 15, 2005.
- After occupancy Pioneer experienced problems in 2006 (birds in attic via an improperly installed vent), 2007 (concrete cracking under a steel beam in covered parking), and 2013 (drywall gaps and sticking door in Unit 210 leading to an engineering review).
- In 2013 Y2 Consultants inspected Unit 210 and, after reviewing plans and calculations, reported significant design flaws and construction defects in PH III.
- Pioneer sued Sargent (professional negligence) and ZCM (breach of contract) in April 2015; claims against Sargent were based on the 2004 plans and design work.
- Sargent moved for summary judgment asserting Pioneer’s malpractice claim was barred by the two-year professional-negligence statute of limitations; the district court granted summary judgment. Pioneer appealed.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court considered whether genuine factual disputes exist about when Pioneer reasonably should have discovered Sargent’s alleged negligence (application of the discovery rule under Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-107).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pioneer’s malpractice claim was time-barred under the 2-year professional negligence statute | Discovery rule exceptions apply because Pioneer did not and could not reasonably discover Sargent’s design defects until 2013 after Y2’s investigation | Pioneer should have been on inquiry notice earlier (construction defects, 2006 bird issue, 2007 concrete cracking) and thus the statute began to run well before 2013 | Reversed: genuine disputes of material fact exist about when Pioneer reasonably should have discovered the claims, so summary judgment was improper |
| Whether the 2006 and 2007 incidents put Pioneer on inquiry notice such that it had to obtain an independent engineering review | Incidents were isolated or attributable to non-design causes (vent installation error; isolated beam anchor issue) and were addressed without putting Pioneer on notice of systemic design defects | Those incidents should have prompted a review and thus triggered the statute | Court held that reasonable minds could differ; affidavits showed disputes, so these incidents did not mandate summary judgment |
| Whether information known to contractors or construction managers imputes notice to Pioneer | Pioneer lacked evidence that contractor (SMS) or construction manager (ZCM) knowledge was imputed to Pioneer | Sargent argued SMS or others must have known during construction and that knowledge should be imputed | Court found no undisputed evidence that knowledge of third parties was imputed to Pioneer; factual issues remain |
| Whether Lucky Gate (single-act damage rule) requires dismissal despite discovery-rule exception | Pioneer relied on discovery-rule exceptions distinguishing multiple incidents and latent defects | Sargent argued Lucky Gate bars delay until damages fully develop | Court distinguished Lucky Gate: where discovery-rule exceptions apply, later injury development does not necessarily bar claims; factual questions about whether incidents were related preclude summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Adelizzi v. Stratton, 243 P.3d 563 (Wyo. 2010) (discovery rule applies to professional-negligence statutes)
- Robert L. Kroenlein Trust v. Kirchhefer, 357 P.3d 1118 (Wyo. 2015) (statute of limitations triggered when reasonable person has reason to know of claim; discovery-rule summary-judgment guidance)
- Lucky Gate Ranch, L.L.C. v. Baker & Assoc., Inc., 208 P.3d 57 (Wyo. 2009) (single wrongful act with immediate and future damages starts limitations period at discovery of the act)
- Heimer v. Antelope Valley Improvement & Serv. Dist., 226 P.3d 860 (Wyo. 2010) (factual questions about whether separate events arise from same error can preclude summary judgment under discovery rule)