Manchester, NN– Morrison Mahoney LLP, one of the northeast region’s leading litigation firms, announced that William A. Staar, a Partner in the firm’s Construction Litigation Practice, prevailed in a case before the New Hampshire Supreme Court (NHSC) on behalf of landscape architect, Wagner Hodgson, Inc.
At issue was whether New Hampshire’s eight-year statute of repose, which protects building professionals from direct claims, also protects those professionals from contribution and indemnity claims. Staar argued that the statute does offer that additional protection. The NHSC agreed, and this landmark decision will provide additional protection for building professionals operating within the state of New Hampshire.
Background
John C. Rankin & A. v. South Street Downtown Holdings, Inc.
South Street Downtown Holdings, Inc. v. Truexcullins and Partners Architects, et al.
The plaintiff is an older man who allegedly fell on a short set of exterior stairs and ramp that are part of a commercial property in Hanover, New Hampshire. As a result, he purportedly suffered severe facial injuries. The plaintiff sued the property owner, i.e., South Street, arguing that a defective design plagued the stairs and ramp and that such design caused him to fall. South Street filed contribution and indemnity claims against several building professionals, including Wagner Hodgson, Inc., that allegedly designed and/or constructed the stairs and ramp approximately a decade before the subject accident.
Legal Argument
The Morrison Mahoney legal team, including Staar and firm associate Nicholas D. Meunier, moved to dismiss, arguing the following:
- A New Hampshire statute of repose, i.e., RSA 508:4-b (1990), bars all claims against building professionals “arising out of” allegedly defective construction that are over eight years post the date of substantial completion of a project, and
- South Street brought its third-party claims against Wagner Hodgson 8.5 years after the Town of Hanover issued a certificate of substantial completion.
South Street conceded that the third-party claims were late, but argued that the statute of repose (1) only barred direct claims against building professionals and (2) did not bar indemnity nor contribution claims. It principally relied on the fact that the pre-1990 version of the statute did specifically bar indemnity and contribution claims and that the current version of the statute does not. The trial court did not rule on the motion and, instead, passed the issue to the NHSC.
NHSC Ruling
The NHSC found that the current version of the statute bars both indemnity and contribution claims. Its principal reasons were as follows:
- Although the current version of the statute does not explicitly bar indemnity and contribution claims as the prior one did, it contains broader language that does encompass such claims. Specifically, the current statute bars “all actions” older than eight years against building professionals “to recover damages for . . . economic loss arising out of any deficiency in the creation of an improvement to real property.” The Court found that a successful claim by the plaintiff against South Street would constitute an “economic loss” that “arose out of” such an alleged deficiency; and
- Excepting contribution and indemnity claims from the statute fundamentally would frustrate the central purpose of the statute, i.e., to allow building professionals to be free and clear from lawsuits pertaining to their work on a particular project eight years after the completion of such work. As made clear by the legislative record for the statute, the goal of the statute was to protect such professionals from all claims arising out of their work. The genesis of the statute was that, prior to its enactment, many building professionals operating in New Hampshire suffered severe financial strain by having to maintain liability insurance for their work sometimes decades after they had completed such work, including well into retirement.
The case was argued in the chamber of the New Hampshire House of Representatives on Tuesday, June 4, 2019, in celebration of the bicentennial anniversary of the state house, and the Court decision was released on August 6, 2019. The Court videotaped both oral argument and the Q&A, which is available here.
