Florida’s statute of repose protects contractors and design professionals from claims for latent defects that arise more than ten years after the date an owner took actual possession of a property. In many ways this limitation makes sense given that the passage of time itself can take a toll on a structure and neither contractors nor engineers should be expected to provide a lifetime warranty on their work.
But a recent decision by Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal has narrowed the scope of Florida’s statute of repose as it applies to engineers. In Manney v. MBV Engineering, Inc., a homeowner hired an engineer to inspect her newly constructed home in 2002 to determine if there were any structural defects. The engineer determined there were no issues with the home and no signs of structural distress.
Thirteen years later, the homeowner, using another engineer, discovered that the home had significant latent structural defects, including a design defect in the foundation. Six months after discovering these defects, the homeowner filed suit against several parties, including the engineer that performed the inspection in 2002. The engineer sought judgment on the pleadings on the basis that the statute of repose applied to bar the claim because it had not been brought within 10 years of the homeowner’s purchase of the home, which the trial court granted in favor of the engineer.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that the engineer’s role as an inspector was not “founded on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement” such that it would be covered by the statute of repose. Rather, the homeowner’s claims were covered by the general statute of limitations for professional malpractice which requires actions to be brought within two years of when the claims are discovered or should have been discovered. The court continued, expressly stating that while the engineers had to observe the construction and construction drawings to perform their original inspection, this did not convert the claim into one founded on the construction of the home such that the statute of repose would apply.
The outcome of this case is important because it reflects that courts still interpret statutes according to their plain terms, and because the engineer’s actions did not fit within the plain terms of the statute, the engineer was not entitled to judgment on the pleadings.