SVF Riva Annapolis LLC v. Gilroy, 187 A.3d 686

Sean McLaughlin died after falling from a wall at a Chuck E. Cheese in the Festival at Riva Shopping Center while repairing an HVAC unit; his survivors sued the property owner (SVF), property manager (Rappaport), and the tenant/operator (CEC).
The building was completed in 1990; plaintiffs sued more than 20 years later, triggering Maryland’s statute of repose, CJP § 5-108.
Plaintiffs alleged negligence/premises-liability based on defendants’ failure to warn that the wall offered no roof access.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the 20-year repose barred the claims and that the possession-and-control exception (CJP § 5-108(d)(2)(i)) applies only to asbestos cases; Rappaport also disputed that it had possession and control.
The Circuit Court granted defendants’ motions treating the exception as asbestos-limited; the Court of Special Appeals reversed, and the Court of Appeals granted certiorari and affirmed the intermediate court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of CJP § 5-108(d)(2)(i) (possession-and-control exception)	Gilroy: the exception applies generally to anyone in actual possession/control, not only asbestos cases	Petitioners: the exception should be read as limited to asbestos cases given surrounding subsections and legislative history	The exception is not asbestos-limited; it applies to any defendant in actual possession and control when the injury occurred
Applicability of statute of repose to manufacturers/suppliers	Implicitly: statute bars claims after 20 years unless an exception applies	Defendants: rely on broad protection of subsection (a)	Court: subsection (a) is broad but exceptions in (d)(2) are distinct; three of them target asbestos matters while (i) does not
Use of subsection captions and legislative-history gloss	Gilroy: plain text controls; captions are not authoritative	Petitioners: caption and placement suggest asbestos focus	Court: captions/catchlines are not legislative enactments and cannot override plain statutory text
Other defenses raised on appeal (contributory negligence, wrongful-death timing, Rappaport possession)	Gilroy: these issues were not decided below and should be addressed later	Petitioners: request affirmance on alternative grounds	Court: declined to address them because they were not decided by the trial court; remand required for further proceedings

Anderson v. United States, 427 Md. 99 (2012) (distinguishing statutes of repose from limitations)
Rose v. Fox Pool Corp., 335 Md. 351 (1994) (statute of repose provides broad protection unless exceptions in § 5-108(d) apply)
Hagerstown Elderly Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Hagerstown Elderly Bldg. Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 368 Md. 351 (2002) (discussing § 5-108 in context of contract claims; reference to asbestos exceptions)
Thanos v. State, 282 Md. 709 (1978) (interpreting disjunctive “or” in statutes)
Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. Coupard, 304 Md. 340 (1985) (purpose of statute of repose and legislative rationale)