Six-year limitation bars claims against subcontractor

(Continued - Page 2)

The Court of Appeals agreed with Serock. The court considered two separate statutory limitations. First, the statute of limitations for written contracts, RCW 4.16.040, requires that a breach-of-contract action be brought within six years after the claim has accrued, which typically is when the breach has occurred. Second, the statute of repose regarding construction-related claims, RCW 4.16.300-.320, requires that an action be brought within six years after substantial completion of construction, or completion of services, whichever is later.

Ledcor argued that the discovery rule applied to its breach-of-contract claims against Serock. That rule tolls the limitation period until the claimant discovered or reasonably should have discovered its claim.

The Court of Appeals considered that argument in light of RCW 4.16.326(1)(g), a statute that sought to eliminate the discovery rule in construction cases by providing that the six-year contract statute of limitations began to run upon termination of services or substantial completion. The Court of Appeals noted that the Washington Supreme Court recently had held that RCW 4.16.326(1)(g) applied only where a defendant pleaded it as an affirmative defense in its answer. In that case, the Supreme Court held that RCW 4.16.326 did not lengthen the six-year statute of limitations.

Here, however, Ledcor never alleged latent defects that would suggest that it did not immediately discover its claims against Serock. The Court of Appeals held that the discovery rule did not apply and that Serock had no reason to plead RCW 4.16.326 as an affirmative defense. And in any event, that statute did not alter in any way the six-year period during which Ledcor was required to bring its breach-of-contract claim against Serock.