Woolford Kanfer recently represented a general contractor that was sued by a prominent Lutheran Church for which it performed renovation work and constructed an addition back in 1995 and 1996 in Wyomissing. The Church sued the general contractor in 2019 alleging that the construction performed in 1994 and 1995 was defective and led to water infiltration through the masonry walls of the addition. In addition to a breach of contract claim, the Church also asserted a claim for violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act. It sought hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages representing the cost to repair the alleged leaks as well as treble damages and attorneys’ fees under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

Woolford Kanfer filed a motion on behalf of our GC client early in the case asking the court to dismiss the claims based on the Pennsylvania Statute of Repose which provides that lawsuits alleging defective construction must be filed within 12 years after construction is complete. We argued that the lawsuit was time-barred because suit was filed more than 12 years after completion of the project. The Church countered that the Statute of Repose only applies if the construction was “lawfully” performed, and it argued that the GC’s work was not in accordance with building code requirements and was therefore not lawfully completed. We argued that the lawsuit failed to allege any facts that the work was not per code and that the Church therefore failed to plead that the work was not lawfully performed. Hence, we argued, the Statute of Repose applied, and the claims were barred. The trial court agreed and dismissed the Church’s claims as untimely. We also argued that the Unfair Trade Practices claim had to be dismissed since that claim only applies to consumer products and residential construction. Again, the trial court agreed with us and dismissed that claim as well.

The Church appealed to the Superior Court arguing that the trial court improperly dismissed the claims and continued to press the argument that the Statute of Repose did not apply since the construction was not lawfully performed. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court in all respects holding that the Statute of Repose applied, and the claims were time-barred. It also agreed that the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act claim could only be brought against a residential project and since this was a church project, the Act did not apply. (Note, had the claims not been dismissed early in the case, the GC was adamant that its work 25 years earlier was per code and satisfactory in all respects and did not concede that any water infiltration was even occurring).