91视频

A contractor鈥檚 work on a project may not be done until an architect signs off on it, according to a recent ruling by the Oregon Court of Appeals.

Sunset Presbyterian Church in 2009 filed a lawsuit against Oregon City-based Brockamp and Jaeger, claiming that the company鈥檚 exterior work for a 1999 church addition was faulty. In response, Brockamp and Jaeger stated that the 10-year limit of the statute of repose had expired.

However, the court ruled that the statute did not apply in this case because of a specific contract clause; it stated that the general contractor had to obtain a certificate of completion from the project鈥檚 architect for the statute to activate.

As a result, Brockamp and Jaeger 鈥� as well as the project鈥檚 subcontractors 鈥� may have to pay for exterior work at the church 14 years after the original effort wrapped up.

鈥淚f you want to enforce a contract timing limitation clause, you have to follow all the contract steps,鈥� said Dan Goldstein, a Ball Janik attorney who represented the church for the appeal. 鈥淭he contractor never asked the architect to come out (or) gave formal notice that (they were) going to try to establish a date of completion.鈥�

The ruling is a reversal of a previous court decision that the case be dismissed because the church鈥檚 claims were time-barred. Now the case is likely to be decided by a jury in a trial court.

The church believes the case is clear-cut. Four years ago, it began to experience problems related to some of the paneling and windows on the addition. It determined that the problems resulted from careless construction.

The project鈥檚 contract stated that any applicable statute of limitations would begin upon 鈥渟ubstantial completion鈥� of the project, according to court documents.

Brockamp and Jaeger argued that substantial completion occurred when the church occupied and used the building for services. The court disagreed, noting that the contract included a clause requiring written certification from the architect for substantial completion.

鈥淚t outlines a pretty specific procedure for obtaining that certificate, and it just was never followed,鈥� Goldstein said.

The ruling was a matter of contract stipulation; however, an 鈥渋ndustry standard鈥� American Institute of Architects contract was used for the project. The form can be downloaded for free at the AIA website.

Contractors and project owners across the country commonly use AIA contracts as a way to save time and money, so the ruling could apply to many projects, Goldstein said.

A representative of Brockamp and Jaeger declined to comment on the ruling, but said that the company鈥檚 insurance company is contemplating taking the case to the Oregon Supreme Court.

If the petition were to go through, the company may try to assert that other documents, such as a construction warranty agreement, should be able to stand in place of written certification 鈥� an argument that Goldstein has heard before.

However, Goldstein does not believe this is the type of case that would be chosen by the Oregon Supreme Court.

鈥淚t鈥檚 not a broader issue of Oregon law,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 pretty narrow on a contract question.鈥�

Goldstein also believes that even if it were chosen, a warranty should not be able to serve as an adequate substitute for written certification.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think when you don鈥檛 follow the right procedures that you should be able to supplant some other document that is easier to get,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he contract really defines it specifically as this certificate by the architect.鈥�

The ruling also applied to the project鈥檚 six subcontractors, even though not all of them worked specifically on the siding. The subcontractors argued that certification should apply only to the general contractor, a claim the court rejected.

鈥淧eople will think something is wrong with what you鈥檝e done, even though there鈥檚 nothing wrong,鈥� said Dan Frakes, superintendent for Anderson Roofing, which worked on the project. 鈥淚t鈥檚 unfortunate we get dragged into a lawsuit for something (the roof) that鈥檚 actually going to benefit the church for the next 20 years or so.鈥�

Frakes does not blame Brockamp and Jaeger. He blames the state contracting system, which requires that one contract be used for all subcontractors.

鈥淚t seems to be just a revenue-generating type of process for some consultant more than it is something that is just,鈥� he said.

The ruling stated that subcontractors must be under one contract to prevent multiple, competing statutes of repose.

A decision is expected next month on whether the case will go before the Oregon Supreme Court. If not, the case will go to a trial court later this year.