Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Brenda S. Cannon bought a condominium unit that was managed by University Trace Condominium Association (UTCA) in 1993. Immediately, Cannon noticed water seeping into her unit from the exterior wall. Each time she noticed the water, she contacted UTCA. UTCA purported to fix the problem on a few occasions, but never did. Cannon wrote to UTCA in November 1993 to complain of the continuing problem and the damage it might cause to the rest of her unit. Also as soon as she moved in, Cannon began experiencing several health problems, ranging from upper respiratory infections, headaches and dizziness, to short-term memory loss, sensitivity to light, sound and cold, and thyroid problems. These problems persisted though 1994, until Cannon had to go on disability. Cannon had been diagnosed with an allergy to mold in 1992. She had been receiving allergy shots for dust and mold since September 1993. In 1997 and 1998, Cannon again complained about water seeping in from the outside wall. When a repairman went to the unit in September 1998, he pulled back a construction materials around the wall to expose the wall’s interior. The wall was covered in mold, which caused an immediate allergic reaction for Cannon. Cannon moved out of the unit soon thereafter. In September 2000, Cannon sued UTCA for negligence, gross negligence and breach of contract. UTCA argued in a summary judgment motion that all of Cannon’s claims were time barred; UTCA claimed that Cannon’s causes of action accrued on Nov. 1, 1993, when she wrote her letter complaining of the water problem. The trial court granted UTCA’s motion in all respects. HOLDING:Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part. The court reverses the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on Cannon’s breach of contract claim. The summary judgment proof offered by Cannon established that she reported to UTCA on more than one occasion that her condo wall continued to leak in 1997 and 1998. Cannon filed suit in September 2000. “By showing only that the original leak occurred more than four years before appellant filed suit, UTCA did not satisfy its burden of proving its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the affirmative defense of limitations. UTCA failed to address [Cannon's] claim that there was a continuing breach by UTCA of its duty to repair the exterior walls of the building housing [Cannon's] condominium between the Fall of 1997 and September 1998.” On the other hand, the court affirms the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the other claims as being time barred. The court rejects Cannon’s contention that the discovery rule applied, and that she did not discover the mold until September 1998, when the repairman exposed the moldy wall. Cannon was aware of the leaks in March 1993 and orally reported those leaks to UTCA, the court explains. Additionally, Cannon wrote UTCA a letter in November 1993 expressing concerns about the continual leaking. She also knew she was allergic to mold, and that she began having serious medical problems within the first year of moving into the unit. Cannon had sufficient facts to discover the fact of injury; simply because she did not actually discover the mold until September 1998 does not toll limitations. Nor does the doctrine of continuing tort serve to extend the statute of limitations. Though Cannon argues her injuries developed over time as water continued to intrude into her home each time it rained, and that each time water leaked into the exterior walls, new damage occurred (more mold grew), the court finds that Cannon is trying to “string together” alleged tortious acts to create continuing wrongful conduct. Merely alleging multiple tortious acts does not create a continuing tort, the court cautions. The doctrine of continuing violation does not apply to extend the statute of limitations, either, the court rules. The court says it cannot find any cases that apply the doctrine to a cause of action other than in the employment discrimination or retaliation arena. The court says it declines to extend the doctrine to claims for negligence and gross negligence. OPINION:Anderson, J.; Yates, Anderson and Hudson, JJ. DISSENT:Yates, J. “I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of UTCA on Cannon’s breach of contract claim. The majority’s reliance on the theory of continuing breach of contract is misplaced. . . . Because the leaks in the walls were never properly repaired while Cannon lived in the condo, this was not a series of separate breaches, but one breach that was never properly remedied.”

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.