Summary
The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed a summary judgment ruling applying the statute of repose for improvements to real property. The court held that, regardless of whether later landscaping work was characterized as a repair or an improvement, the plaintiff presented facts indicating that her injury arose from the later work rather than the original 2005 construction. The court reversed and remanded the case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the 2011 or 2013 work on the retaining wall and fire-pit area constituted construction of an improvement to real property that restarted the ten-year period under SDCL 15-2A-3.
- Whether, even if the later work was an ordinary repair rather than an improvement, SDCL 15-2A-3 barred Brude's claim when her injury allegedly arose from that later work.
Holdings
- Under SDCL 15-2A-3, the ten-year statute of repose is measured from substantial completion of the relevant construction, not automatically from the defendant's last culpable act.
- Ordinary repairs to an improvement to real property are not within the scope of SDCL 15-2A-3 because the statute applies to construction of an improvement, not ordinary repairs.
- Summary judgment for Yellow Jacket was improper because Brude presented material facts indicating that her injury arose from the allegedly negligent 2011 or 2013 work, and that work either could constitute a later improvement or could be an ordinary repair outside the statute's scope.
Key quotations
“Thus, if an ordinary repair is not an improvement and SDCL 15-2A-3 applies only to improvements, it is inherent that SDCL 15-2A-3 does not apply to claims for injuries arising from ordinary repairs.” (¶ 11)
“Regardless of whether the work in 2011/2013 constituted a repair or an improvement to real property, SDCL 15-2A-3 does not bar the claim at issue.” (¶ 15)
Factual background
Yellow Jacket completed landscaping, including a patio, retaining walls, and a fire pit, at the Jamison residence in September 2005. The retaining walls were repaired in 2007, and additional work occurred in either 2011 or 2013, including repairs and an enlargement of the fire-pit area. On October 7, 2014, Brude stepped on a retaining-wall capstone, which gave way and caused her to fall and suffer an injury requiring surgery. Brude filed suit on November 6, 2015, alleging that the later work had been negligently performed.
Procedural history
Brude sued Breen for negligence after she was injured when a capstone on a retaining wall gave way. Breen moved for summary judgment under SDCL 15-2A-3, arguing that more than ten years had elapsed since substantial completion of the landscaping. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Breen, and the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded for further proceedings because SDCL 15-2A-3 did not bar Brude's claim as a matter of law.