Defense Digest

Architects Liability In New Jersey Limited Under Statute Of Repose
By John L. Slimm, Esq.*

The New Jersey Legislature made a policy decision in enacting N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1 that those involved in the design, planning, construction, or supervision of improvements to real property are entitled to the security afforded by a bright-line Statute of Repose.  In Greczyn v. Colgate-Palmolive, et al, A-5033-02T1 (App. Div. March 10, 2004), the plaintiff tripped and fell on a staircase at Colgate-Palmolive on March 11, 1999.  She filed suit on October 3, 2000, to recover damages.  Through discovery, she learned that Kling Lindquist served as architects and were involved in the renovation and construction, which resulted in the staircase upon which she fell.  The project had been completed by November 1990.  In October 2001, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend her Complaint to add Kling Lindquist as a defendant.  The motion was granted.  Kling, relying on New Jersey's ten-year Statute of Repose, moved for summary judgment.  The trial court granted the motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed. 

The court noted that a Statute of Repose is not a statute of limitations.  The Statute of Repose operates without regard to the accrual of a cause of action.  Thus, injuries occurring more than ten years after the negligent act responsible for the harm form no basis for recovery.  The injured party literally has no cause of action.  Also, because N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1 is a Statute of Repose, as opposed to a statute of limitations, its ten-year period cannot be enlarged because the injured party is a minor.  Also, the ten-year period cannot be expanded because the defect in construction is latent and concealed through subterfuge.  The County of Hudson v. Terminal Construction Corp., 154 N.J. Super. at 264 (App. Div. 1977), certif. denied, 75 N.J. at 605 (1978).

In Greczyn, the original complaint was filed within the ten-year period.  The plaintiff used John Doe designations in her complaint.  Therefore, she argued that Kling was timely joined as a defendant, although not identified beyond the John Doe designation.  The Appellate Division rejected that argument, finding that it would result in a complete evisceration of the period of repose the Legislature intended to confer.  Also, there is a significant distinction in the nature of construction-related litigation and other litigation.  Defects in construction often do not manifest themselves for years, and it can be difficult to identify the causes and responsible parties.  In enacting N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1, the Legislature made a policy decision that those involved in the design, planning, construction, or supervision of improvements to real property were entitled to the security afforded by a bright-line Statute of Repose.  Accordingly, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.

This opinion is significant in that it affords further protection to architects and designers in connection with claims arising out of construction projects.

Should you have any questions regarding the same, please contact Jack Slimm of the firm's Cherry Hill office. 

*  Jack, a shareholder in our Cherry Hill, NJ office, can be reached at (856) 414-6021 or jslimm@mdwcg.com.