Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On April 10, 2003, Sam and Jean Pochucha purchased a home built by Bill Cox Constructors Inc. in September 1995. After purchasing the home, the Pochuchas noticed that water would leak into the lower rooms after it rained. The Pochuchas had the home inspected by engineers who informed them the French drain system under the foundation of the house had been improperly designed and installed. On April 1, 2005, the Pochuchas filed suit against Bill Cox for the damage to their home. On Nov. 3, 2005, Bill Cox filed a motion for leave to designate Galbraith Engineering Consultants Inc. as a responsible third party. On Dec. 1, 2005, the trial court granted Bill Cox leave to designate Galbraith as a responsible third party. On Jan. 27, 2006, the Pochuchas joined Galbraith as a defendant. On June 28, 2006, Galbraith moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the Pochuchas’ claims on the ground that the 10-year limitations period set forth in Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code �16.008(a) barred any claims against it for liability. On Nov. 8, 2006, the trial court signed an order granting Galbraith’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing the Pochuchas’ claims against Galbraith with prejudice. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. On appeal, the Pochuchas argued that the trial court erred in granting Galbraith’s motion for summary judgment, because they timely added Galbraith within 60 days after Galbraith was designated a responsible third party pursuant to �33.004, which provides: “If a person is designated under this section as a responsible third party, a claimant is not barred by limitations from seeking to join that person, even though such joinder would otherwise be barred by limitations, if the claimant seeks to join that person not later than 60 days after that person is designated as a responsible third party.” In its motion for summary judgment, Galbraith relied on �16.008, which requires that a suit be filed “not later than 10 years after the substantial completion of the improvement or the beginning of operation of the equipment in an action arising out of a defective or unsafe condition of the real property, the improvement, or the equipment.” Galbraith argued that because �16.008 is a statute of repose and �33.004(e) refers to limitations, �33.004(e) does not apply to extend the 10-year period contained in �16.008. Thus, Galbraith concluded that the Pochuchas’ claim was time-barred, because they sued Galbraith after the expiration of the 10-year period. The court disagreed. While �16.008 may be a statute of repose, the court stated, the Texas Legislature did not distinguish between statutes of limitations or statutes of repose when it enacted �33.004(e). Because �33.004(e) applies to �16.008 to allow a party to be joined after the expiration of the 10-year period set forth in �16.008, the court held the trial court erred in granting Galbraith’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing the Pochuchas’ claims against Galbraith. OPINION:Marion, J.; Lopez, C.J., and Marion and Speedlin, JJ.

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?


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.