Sunset Presbyterian Church v. Brockamp & Jaeger, Inc.
325 P.3d 730
| Or. | 2014Background
- Sunset Presbyterian Church contracted with Brockamp & Jaeger as general contractor to build a new church facility under an AIA form.
- Brockamp subcontracted with Anderson Roofing and others; Sunset did not contract with subcontractors.
- Construction began in 1998; church services started Feb 14, 1999; dedication occurred Mar 14, 1999.
- County issued final occupancy May 28, 1999; final payment approval by architect Nov 19, 1999.
- In 2009 Sunset discovered water damage and sued; defendants asserted accrual and repose defenses under contract and ORS 12.135.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to defendants; Court of Appeals reversed; issue framed for Oregon Supreme Court on accrual timing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What triggers accrual of tort claims in this contract framework? | Sunset argues accrual occurs on date of substantial completion per contract, or when owner uses property for intended purpose. | Brockamp argues accrual begins when construction is substantially complete functionally, as defined by the contract and use or occupancy. | Accrual tied to date of Architect's Certificate of Substantial Completion; absence of certificate defeats reliance; remand for proof. |
| Does the statute of repose under ORS 12.135 apply to bar claims given contested completion date? | Sunset contends no bar if completion date is not clearly established. | Subcontractor contends repose begins earlier and may bar action if fully complete by a specific date. | Due to contested completion date, summary judgment on repose is inappropriate; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. State Farm Life Co., 240 Or 113 (1965) (contract governs accrual policy; adoption of policy-based accrual.)
- Rice v. Rabb, 354 Or 721 (2014) (discovery rule applies to tort actions.)
- Gilbert v. California Oregon Power Co., 223 Or 1 (1960) (prevents policy cited by non-performance; agency/prima facie context.)
- Pac. States Fire Ins. Co. v. C. Rowan Motor Co., 122 Or 665 (1927) (parol evidence admissible to prove existence of a document.)
- President & Trustees of Tualatin Acad. & Pac. Univ. v. Keene, 59 Or 496 (1911) (affidavit admissible to prove existence of mortgage/document.)
- PIH Beaverton, LLC v. Super One, Inc., 355 Or 267 (2014) (begins ORS 12.135 repose when contractee accepts fully complete work (no written acceptance).)