494 P.3d 367
Or. Ct. App.2021Background
- Waterfront Pearl Condominium Owners Association sued multiple parties, including WCM Industries (dba Watco), alleging defective "tub shoes" caused water damage to condo units.
- Trial court granted limited summary judgment for Watco, concluding plaintiff’s claims were time-barred under the discovery rule and the applicable limitations statute.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing ORS 12.110(1) (two-year limitations for injuries) governs rather than the products-liability statute (ORS 30.905), and that discovery had not occurred within the limitations period.
- The factual record showed leaks around tub shoes and later repairs, including a plumber’s replacement using incorrectly sized tub shoes, but multiple plausible causes and responsible actors existed (product defect, wrong part, installation damage, bathtub/plumbing issues).
- The court held there was a genuine factual dispute about when plaintiff knew or should have known the nature of the tortious conduct and the identity of the tortfeasor, so summary judgment was improper; the case was reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations controls? | ORS 12.110(1) (two-year injury limitations) applies to property damage from construction/product problems. | Products-liability statute (ORS 30.905) governs. | ORS 12.110(1) controls for this construction-defect/property-damage claim. |
| When does the discovery rule start to run? | Discovery had not occurred before the limitations cutoff because plaintiff lacked knowledge of causation and tortious nature. | Plaintiff knew (or should have known) of the injury and its cause before the cutoff, so claims are time-barred. | Whether discovery occurred is a factual question; record raises genuine issue about plaintiff’s knowledge of harm, causation, and tortious conduct. |
| Did plaintiff know the identity of the tortfeasor? | Plaintiff lacked reasonable knowledge of which actor caused the damage given multiple potential actors. | Plaintiff had sufficient information to identify the responsible party. | Identity of tortfeasor is part of discovery; factual dispute exists whether plaintiff reasonably knew the tortfeasor. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate? | No—material factual disputes preclude summary judgment on discovery/limitations. | Yes—the undisputed facts show limitations expired. | No—summary judgment was improper; reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodwin v. Kingsmen Plastering, Inc., 359 Or 694 (2016) (construction-defect property damage governed by ORS 12.110 two-year limitation)
- Doe v. Lake Oswego School District, 353 Or 321 (2013) (discovery requires knowledge of harm, causation, and tortious conduct)
- Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Or 270 (2011) (when a reasonable person should be aware of substantial possibility that claim elements exist)
- T. R. v. Boy Scouts of America, 344 Or 282 (2008) (discovery accrual is ordinarily a jury question unless only one reasonable conclusion exists)
- Johnson v. Mult. Co. Dept. Community Justice, 344 Or 111 (2008) (knowledge of tortious nature generally requires knowledge of tortfeasor identity)
- Gaston v. Parsons, 318 Or 247 (1994) (definition of legally cognizable harm for accrual)
- Burley v. Clackamas County, 298 Or App 462 (2019) (standard of review for legal questions on appeal)
- Htaike v. Sein, 269 Or App 284 (2015) (application of discovery rule principles)