|
(A
revised version of this article will appear in The Construction
Lawyer, Volume 22, No. 1, January 2002, published by
the American Bar Association's Forum on the Construction
Industry.)
By
John W. Ralls
Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP
In
the late 1980s, a developer hired a geotechnical engineer,
architect, structural engineer and construction manager
to design and build condominiums on a steep slope on Capital
Hill in Seattle. The condominium units were completed in
1990. In January 1997, the condominiums sustained major
damage as a result of a landslide caused by a severe rainstorm.
The homeowners sued the geotechnical engineer, the architect,
the structural engineer and the construction manager.
The
homeowners' suit was dismissed as untimely based on Wash.
Rev. Code §§4.16.300 and 4.16.310, which establish
a six-year statute of repose for property damage claims
arising out of construction projects. Sections 4.16.300
and 4.16.310 specifically exclude from their protection
claims against manufacturers and owners.
The
homeowners argued that the statutes violated the equal protection
clause of the U.S. Constitution and the privileges and immunities
clause of the Washington Constitution. The Washington Supreme
Court rejected both arguments. 1519-1525 Lakeview Blvd.
Condominium Assoc. v. Apartment Sales Corp., 29 P.3d
1249 (Wash. 2001).
The
homeowners' equal protection challenge was based on the
fact that the six-year statute of repose denies equal protection
to manufacturers and owners by excluding them from the protection
afforded by the statute.
The
court applied the rational basis test to the equal protection
challenge. Under the rational basis test, the challenged
law must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
The court found that owners of real property have "independent
legal duties and independent protections against liability."
The court found that manufacturers, unlike builders, have
liability under products liability law and produce standardized
goods in a controlled environment. The court concluded that
in light of these differences, the legislature's exclusion
of owners and manufacturers from the statute bears a rational
relationship to the legislature's legitimate purpose of
protecting people who construct improvements from excessive
liability.
Under
the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution,
"no law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class
of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges
or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally
belong to all citizens or corporations." The plaintiffs'
immunity challenge was based on "a right to a remedy
in all cases where a plaintiff has suffered a legal injury."
The court rejected the argument on the ground that there
is no "guarantee" that there will be a remedy
through the courts for every legal injury suffered by a
plaintiff. The court cited cases from other jurisdictions
also holding that legislatures have a legitimate and proper
function in limiting causes of action by enactment of statutes
of limitation. "Because the legislature may alter or
restrict a common law right without foreclosing that right,
we decline to determine whether a right to a remedy is implied
by the… State Constitution."
If you would like to receive legal reports and updates
more quickly, by e-mail, click here and fill out the mailing list form.
For more information about the issues covered in this report, please contact John Ralls in our San Francisco office at 415-369-7210 or at jralls@thelen.com or contact your Thelen attorney. For more information about Thelen's Construction and Government Contracts Department, click here.
©2001 Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP
|
