BOSTON (Legal Newsline) – On Aug. 29, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of a contracting company after it determined a woman was outside of the statute of repose following a fire in her home.
The Supreme Court had to determine if plaintiff Terry Bridgwood’s claims against A.J. Wood Construction Inc. and others were subject to a six-year statute of repose outlined in G.L.c. 260, 2B.
The issues between Bridgwood and A.J. Wood began after Bridgwood said renovations from A.J. Wood, which took place between 2000 and 2001, were the reason her home suffered a fire in 2012.
A.J. Wood responded to Bridgwood’s initial lawsuit with a motion to dismiss the suit as untimely in the Superior Court, which was granted. Bridgwood’s appeal was transferred to the Supreme Court by its request, and it affirmed the Superior Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court pointed out none of the defendants had a permit to replace or repair a number of ceiling light fixtures in Bridgwood’s home. They allegedly also never scheduled an inspection with a city of Newburyport inspector before it renovated the fixtures. Considering this, the work done concerning the ceiling light fixtures were outside of the compliance with federal, state and local codes.
Bridgwood alleged she didn’t know about the compliance issue when the wiring work sparked a fire in her home in 2012, causing more than $40,000 in damages. She didn’t file her lawsuit until January 2016. The defendants said her lawsuit was blocked by the statute of repose, and the Supreme Court agreed.
While Bridgwood said the statute is irrelevant for consumer protection claims, the Supreme Court said it “protects contractors from claims arising long after the completion of their work” and “eliminates a plaintiff’s cause of action even in cases of fraudulent concealment.”
Still, Bridgwood also argued that because the relief under the statute is “neither wholly tortious nor wholly contractual,” she is not subject to the statute of repose.
The Supreme Court also challenged this and said Bridgwood misapplied the language of the statute. It pointed out it doesn’t give a plaintiff permission to steer clear of the statute by relabeling or re-categorizing the claim.
The appeals court ultimately decided Bridgwood’s lawsuit is tort and blocked by the statute of repose and its six-year time limit. It said ruling in any other way would prevent any contractor from officially ending a project.
Justices Ralph Gants, Barbara Lenk and Kimberly Budd dissented. Gants said “to shield those who engaged in unfair and deceptive acts in violation of c. 93A from six-year-old claims that are timely brought under the statute of limitations, is not the appropriate role of this court…”
"Because this opinion, in effect, adds a statute of repose to G.L. c. 260, § 5A,for c. 93A claims to protect contractors and subcontractors from liability for unfair and deceptive acts that arise out of deficiency or neglect in their design, planning, or construction, and because this is a usurpation of a distinctly legislative prerogative, I dissent," Gants wrote.