Romero v. Amburn

When deciding whether the discovery rule is applicable to a specific statute of limitations, the Court considers ORS 12.010, which states that actions must be initiated within the prescribed periods in the chapter after the cause of action has accrued, unless a different limitation is specified by statute. Moreover, ORS 12.080(1) mandates that any action for contract or liability, whether expressed or implied, must be initiated within six years of its accrual.

Plaintiff challenged a ruling in favor of Defendant after bringing an action alleging hidden construction defects a decade after purchasing a newly built house. At trial, Defendant relied on the six-year statute of limitations and moved for summary judgment.  On appeal, Plaintiff assigned error to the summary judgment in favor of Defendant and argued the action “accrued” under the discovery rule and the applicable six-year statute of limitations began to run at the time Plaintiff knew or should have known the defects.  In response, Defendant disagreed and argued a six-year state of limitations for a claim of breach of contract does not incorporate the discovery rule.  When deciding whether the discovery rule is applicable to a specific statute of limitations, the Court considers ORS 12.010, which states that actions must be initiated within the prescribed periods in the chapter after the cause of action has accrued, unless a different limitation is specified by statute. Moreover, ORS 12.080(1) mandates that any action for contract or liability, whether expressed or implied, must be initiated within six years of its accrual.  The Court reasoned the statue of limitations in ORS 12.080(1) was not subject to the discovery rule and the Plaintiff’s contract claims were time-barred.  Thus, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for Defendant.  Affirmed.