Letter: Appeals Court Warranty Decision 'Undermines' Public Policy
"The comments by lawyers offering their thoughts on the case assume that the statute of repose can be waived by contract. We made this argument strenuously before the Court of Appeals ... "
December 03, 2019 at 11:09 AM
3 minute read
As counsel for Southern States Chemical Inc., I am writing this letter in response to comments made by various counsel in your article dated November 22, "Lawyer: Appeals Court Ruling Ends Construction Warranties at Eight Years."
You accurately quote the opinion as follows: "Whether in tort or in contract, the statute [of repose] broadly precludes any action to recover damages brought outside the eight year period of repose."
You then quote counsel for one of my client's opponents, Tampa Tank Inc., as follows: "The Court of Appeals' decision in this case does not affect construction warranties longer than eight years," an obvious contradiction of the Court of Appeals' ruling.
Further, the twelve-month warranty issued by Tampa Tank was still enforceable at the time of the filing of this action (under Nulite Industries v. Horne, 252 Ga. Appeals 378 (2001), and Benning Construction vs. Lakeshore Plaza, 240 Ga. 426 (1977)), unless otherwise terminated by the statute of repose, and so the ruling unambiguously cuts off all construction warranties at eight years.
As for the suggestion that there was a lack of consideration for the 45 year warranty, that issue was never decided by the trial court, and so that issue was not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. Furthermore, there is ample evidence and case law in the record to show that Southern was a third-party beneficiary of the warranty set out in the post-installation report prepared by Corrosion Control (and approved by Tampa Tank). See Walls, Inc. v. Atl. Realty Co., 186 Ga. App. 389, 391-92 (1988).
The comments by lawyers offering their thoughts on the case assume that the statute of repose can be waived by contract. We made this argument strenuously before the Court of Appeals, in addition to the argument that the statute of repose was never intended to apply to any contractual arrangement in the first place, citing several Georgia appellate decisions, but to no avail.
It is thus apparent that without a reversal by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals' opinion fundamentally undermines the "bedrock of public policy" of this State: freedom of contract. National Casualty vs. Georgia School Boards, 304 Ga. 224 (2018).
We urge any of your readers who would like further information to review our motion for reconsideration, filed in the Court of Appeals on November 11 (Case No. A19A0960).
Jeffrey Y. Lewis
Atlanta
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBuild Your Foundation: Current Issues in Tennessee Construction Law
Conquering Construction Contract Disputes: Strategies for Construction Attorneys to Consider
Construction Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Look at Current Trends
8 minute readGDOT Sues Publix, Others Over Shopping Center Easement Rights
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250