The opinion of the Court was delivered by
At issuе is whether a service line leading from a gas main on residential property is an improvement within the meaning of
*137
N.J.S.A.
2A:14-1.1, which provides that no action shall be brought against a contractor more than ten years after the construction of an improvement to reаl property. The Appellate Division held that a gas service constituted such an improvement. 307
N.J.Super.
127,
In 1955, NJNG contracted with thе J.F. Kiely Construction Company (Kiely) to install service lines, or laterals, from NJNG’s gas main on Bartram Street in Ocean City to adjacent homеs. Thirty-four years later, South Jersey contracted with R & T Castellini Company (R & T) to install new service lines. When R & T installed the new service line in 1989, it capped the old one. At the Ebert house, R & T capped the old line at the meter behind the house, rather than at the main. On March 7,1990, the old line burst. Gas leaked into the Ebert house, exрloded, and damaged a living room wall.
In 1992, the Eberts and their home insurer, Prudential, (jointly, the Eberts), sued South Jersey, which impleaded Kiely. South Jersey sеttled with the Eberts but preserved its claim against Kiely.
In December 1994, Kiely moved for summary judgment, arguing that
N.J.S.A.
2A:14-1.1 barred South Jersey’s claim. The Law Division denied the motion, holding that a service line is a conduit, not an “improvement” within the meaning of the statute. The Appellate Division reversеd, finding that a gas service line, which demonstrated the characteristics of “functional utility, permanency and value enhancement,” 307
N.J.Super.
at 134,
N.J.S.A 2A:14-l.l(a) states in relevant part:
No action whether in contract, in tort, or otherwise to recover damages for any deficiency in the design, planning, supervisiоn or construction of an improvement to real property, or for any injury to property, real or personal, or for an injury to the *138 person, or for bodily injury or wrongful death, arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, nor any action for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained on account of such injury, shall be brought against any person performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision of construction or construction of such improvement to real property, more than 10 years after the performance or furnishing of such services and construction.
As distinguished from a statute of limitation, which bars a cаuse of action if not instituted within a specified period of time,
N.J.S.A.
2A:14-1.1 is a statute of repose. As a statute of repose, “[i]t does not bar a cause of action; its effect, rather, is to prevent what might otherwise be a cause of action, from ever arising.”
Rosenberg v. North Bergen,
61
N.J.
190, 199,
In
Rosenberg, supra,
a pedestrian tripped in the cracked pavement of a public street. Ruling that paving a public street constituted an improvement to real property, this Court concluded that the expiration of the period of repose barred the pedestrian’s action against the paving company. The Court perceived the statute as a legitimate legislative reaction to judicial decisions expanding the period of liability under certain statutes of limitations. One such expansion, known as the discovery rule, “decrees that in aрpropriate cases a statute of limitations shall not be deemed to run until a wrong has been discovered or should have beеn discovered.”
Id.
at 197,
*139
When denying Kiеly’s motion for summary judgment in the present ease, the trial court relied on
Washington v. City of Elizabeth,
245
N.J.Super.
325,
The Washington opinion is both distinguishable and flawed. To the extent that the opinion holds that N.J.S.A 2A:14-1.1 does not apply to a street, the holding is distinguishable from the present case, which involves a gas service line on private property. A telephone line in the bed of a municipal street may not improve the value of the street, but does improve the value of adjacent property. Similarly, a gas main in a street adds value to adjacent properties. The flaw in the Washington opinion is the failure to recognize that an underground utility line can be both an extension of a utility distribution system and an improvement to the proрerty it serves. To the extent that Washington holds otherwise, we overrule it.
In general, an improvement to real property permanently increases the property’s value. 21
Am.Jur.2A, Improvements,
§ 1 (1968);
Black’s Law Dictionary
(4th ed.1968). Among the relevant factors are “whether the modification or addition enhances the use of the property, invоlves the expenditure of labor or money, is more than mere repair or replacement, adds to the value of the property, and is permanent in nature.”
Van Den Hul v. Baltic Farmers Elevator Co.,
As this Court has recognized, the Legislature intended that
N.J.S.A.
2A:14-1.1 should apply “to all who can, by a sеnsible reading of the words of the act, be brought within its ambit.”
Rosenberg, supra,
61
N.J.
at 198,
Our analysis comports with that of other jurisdictions.
See Van Den Hul, supra,
716
F.
2d at 508 (holding that utility line improves real property);
Delgadillo v. City of Socorro,
104
N.M.
476,
We conclude that the service line installed by Kiely was an improvement to the Ebert home. N.J.S.A 2A:14-1.1 thus bars South Jersey’s claim against Kiely.
The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed.
For affirmance — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN, and COLEMAN — 7.
Opposed — None.