Repeals and reenacts provisions on time limitations on certain actions against professional engineers, architects…

• Democratic5
• Republican1

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Jeremy Cooney says this is needed

When a contractor or design professional's client (i.e., owner of a building) sues a contractor or design professional, CPLR's general stat- ute of limitation rules apply and operates to cut off any claim within a three-year or six-year period. In an action brought by an owner/client against a design professional or contractor for damages resulting from a personal injury based on negligence, a three-year statute of limitations applies, and the cause of action accrued at the time of injury. A malp- ractice claim against a design professional or contractor by an owner/client carries a three-year statute of limitations and the cause of action accrues upon completion of the project. Similarly, an owner/client claim based on breach of contract is governed by a six-year statute of limitations and the cause of action accrues upon completion of the contractual duties. Chapter 682 of the Laws of 1996, which instituted an expedited procedure for claims against design professionals brought more than 10 years after completion of work, was a positive, yet modest, first step to protect design professionals from meritless claims that are brought years, some- times decades, after completion of a design professional's work. It is still unfair, however, to hold design professionals, geologists and contractors liable for errors in design where injuries are sustained many years after the rendition of services and where the design profes- sional, geologist or contractor no longer has supervision or control over the premises. This legislation recognizes the fact that there comes a time when a structure passes from a well-designed building to a well- maintained building. The bill seeks to place liability on the person in the best position to correct the defects the present owner of the build- ing, and to relieve the design professional and the contractor from the threat of perpetual liability that exists under current law. The outer limit of a ten-year statute of repose was selected because a study of insurance claims against design professionals and contractors prepared for the American Institute of Architects demonstrated that most third-party claims are brought within seven years of project completion. More specifically, the study indicates that if a ten-year statute of repose were in place and the claims were measured from completion of the project, 100% of all claims brought during the study period would have been allowed. The additional one-year grace period, which sets an outside limit of eleven years for those injured in the tenth year following completion of the project, would provide additional assurance that injured parties will have a right of recourse. These numbers demon- strate that the problem is not the number of actual claims brought after ten years - the problem is the threat of potential lawsuits which force design professionals and contractors to carry insurance coverage long after the project has been completed and for years after they supposedly retire from the profession. Further justification for establishing a statute of repose is that the longer the period between the completion of the structure and the inju- ry, the greater the opportunity for some intervening negligence to occur. The longer the owner is in possession of the improvement, using it, altering it, and maintaining it, the more likely it is that an inju- ry will be the result of the owner's negligence rather than that of the design professionals or contractors. Thirty-two other states have enacted legislation establishing a statute of seven years or more with completion of the project serving as the accrual date for the cause of action.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.