Parties to a construction contract should pay particular attention to the contract’s terms concerning claims. Statutory limitations periods may be shortened or extended.
When things go wrong on a construction project, owners and contractors alike may need time to investigate and assert a potential claim. Parties should not have to fear the prospect of litigation indefinitely; all have an interest in having finality as to what will happen next and whether it will be necessary to mount a defense to a claim. Beyond the parties involved, the public has an interest in making sure that court resources are utilized efficiently. State legislatures weigh these competing interests when establishing “statutes of limitation,” which are laws that establish time periods for filing suit under written contracts, including construction contracts. In Virginia, a person has five (5) years from the date that a construction contract was allegedly breached to file a lawsuit.
Statutes of limitation can be changed, however, by the terms of the contract or by a subsequent agreement. A statutory limitation period can be made either shorter or longer. If parties are attempting to resolve a contract dispute, they may enter into a “tolling agreement,” to “toll,” the statute of limitations, thus lengthening the limitation period.
The new 2017 AIA General Conditions of the Contract for Construction (AIA Document A201) defers to state statutes of limitation with respect to the time for claims to be made, however an outside date of 10 years from substantial completion is also specified, after which time the ability to bring a claim expires. Because the 10-year period is so much longer than almost all state statutory limitation periods, the practical effect of using the 2017 AIA construction contracts is that regular state statutory law will apply to determine the time in which a party has to file a lawsuit.
Statutes of limitation can also be shortened by the terms of a contact. A 2017 case by the Maryland Court of Appeals illustrates how this might work. In Ceccone v. Carroll Home Services, LLC, Mr. and Mrs. Ceccone entered into a maintenance contract with an HVAC contractor for maintenance and repair of the Ceccones’ residential oil-fueled furnace. The written contract contained a clause requiring that any lawsuit brought by the Ceccones be filed within one (1) year of the event giving rise to the lawsuit, thus shortening the Maryland statutory three-year period. Interestingly, the contract did not impose the same shortened limitation period on the HVAC contractor. The Ceccones subsequently filed a lawsuit against the HVAC contractor more than one year—but less than three years—after a dispute arose. The trial court threw out the case summarily, citing the one-year limitation period imposed by the contract.
The Maryland Court of Appeals, however, remanded the case back to the trial court, holding that the trial court acted too quickly in dismissing the Ceccones’ case and did not conduct a proper inquiry to determine the enforceability of the contract’s limitations period. In particular, the trial court needed to examine at least three issues before deciding whether the contract’s shortened limitation period was enforceable. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court should examine: (1) whether any law prohibited such a contract provision shortening the limitations period (similar laws exist in other states such as Florida, Alabama, and Texas); (2) whether other defenses existed, such as fraud, duress, or misrepresentation; and (3) whether the provision was reasonable. With respect to this last inquiry into “reasonableness,” the appeals court strongly suggested that “one-way” provisions that do not apply equally to both parties to the contract may not be “reasonable.”
Construction professionals should thoroughly review their construction contracts and pay particular attention to whether the contract attempts to change—and especially shorten—any applicable limitations period. A call to your construction lawyer will provide answers to questions that are best asked before, not after, you sign the contract.
As president of Hirschler and head of the firm's litigation section, Courtney knows how to lead people and projects to a successful outcome.
Leveraging deep experience in the construction industry, Courtney advises public and ...
Kelly’s practice focuses on construction law, commercial and product liability law, with an emphasis on dispute resolution—including mediation, arbitration, jury and bench trials in state and federal court. She routinely ...
Nate fully engages in each case and shoulders his clients’ needs. Communication, efficiency and careful judgment define his practice. In every case, he investigates competing claims to thoroughly understand their strengths ...
A professional engineer (P.E.) and an experienced lawyer, Webb began practicing at Hirschler Fleischer following four years of work as a consulting engineer. His multidisciplinary practice focuses on general business and ...
SubscribeSubscribe to Hirschler by Email
- Virginia Department of General Services Releases Survey on Statute of Limitations Issue
- Alternatives to Pay-if-Paid Provisions
- Changes to Mechanic’s Lien Law Effective July 1!
- Virginia General Assembly: Construction Bills To Watch- Part 2
- Courtney Paulk and Kelly Bundy Discuss “Unpreventable Employee Misconduct” Defense in Article for Construction Executive
- Five Licensure Issues All Virginia Contractors Should Consider
- New Trump Executive Order Encourages Buy American Preferences in Infrastructure Projects
- Five Issues all Subcontractors and Suppliers on Federal Projects Should Consider
- Litigation. Arbitration. Mediation. What is the Difference and Who Should Care?
- Courtney Paulk to Participate in University of Richmond - Robins School of Business's C-Suite Conversations
- Mechanic's Liens
- Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
- Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR)
- Dispute Resolution
- Government Contracts
- Miller Act
- Workforce Development
- Virginia Employment Commission (VEC)
- Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission
- Uniform Statewide Building Code
- Change Orders
- Little Miller Act
- August 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016