638 N.E.2d 1079 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1994
Plaintiff Bonnie A. Dreher has appealed from a judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas dismissing her action against defendant Willard Construction Company for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. She has argued that the trial court incorrectly concluded that her claim for property damage was barred by either the four-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C.
Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. It argued that, to the extent plaintiff had averred a cause of action for damages to real property, that claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C.
Plaintiff argued that neither R.C.
On March 23, 1993, the trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff thereafter appealed to this court. *446
"No action to recover damages for any injury to property, real or personal, * * * arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, * * * shall be brought against any person performing services for or furnishing the design, planning, supervision of construction, or construction of such improvement to real property, more than ten years after the performance or furnishing of such services and construction."
R.C.
"Unlike a true statute of limitations, which limits the time in which a plaintiff may bring suit after the cause of action accrues, a statute of repose, such as R.C.
Assuming arguendo that R.C.
Defendant has not argued, however, that R.C.
Plaintiff has argued that R.C.
"An action for any of the following causes shall be brought within four years after the cause thereof accrued:
"* * *
"(D) For an injury to the rights of the plaintiff not arising on contract nor enumerated in sections
There is nothing provided in either R.C.
Further, there is nothing inconsistent in holding that both a statute of repose and a statute of limitations are applicable to the same claim.1 As noted previously, the statute of repose at issue in this case begins running upon the completion of services and construction; statutes of limitations begin running upon accrual of a cause of action. Both serve to limit the duration of liability and "`the attendant risks of stale litigation.'" See Sedar,
It was clear from the face of plaintiff's complaint that plaintiff's claimed cause of action accrued in excess of four years before she filed her complaint. To the extent she sought recovery for damage to real property, her claim against defendant was barred by the four-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C.
Judgment affirmed.
BAIRD, P.J., and REECE, J., concur.