(a) All civil actions in tort, contract, or otherwise against any architect or engineer performing or furnishing the design, planning, specifications, testing, supervision, administration, or observation of any construction of any improvement on or to real property, or against builders who constructed, or performed or managed the construction of, an improvement on or to real property designed by and constructed under the supervision, administration, or observation of an architect or engineer, or designed by and constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications prepared by an architect or engineer, for the recovery of damages for:
(i) Any defect or deficiency in the design, planning, specifications, testing, supervision, administration, or observation of the construction of any such improvement, or any defect or deficiency in the construction of any such improvement; or
(ii) Damage to real or personal property caused by any such defect or deficiency; or
(iii) Injury to or wrongful death of a person caused by any such defect or deficiency;
shall be commenced within two years next after a cause of action accrues or arises, and not thereafter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no relief can be granted on any cause of action which accrues or would have accrued more than seven years after the substantial completion of construction of the improvement on or to the real property, and any right of action which accrues or would have accrued more than seven years thereafter is barred, except where prior to the expiration of such seven-year period, the architect, engineer, or builder had actual knowledge that such defect or deficiency exists and failed to disclose such defect or deficiency to the person with whom the architect, engineer, or builder contracted to perform such service.
(b) This section shall apply to any civil action commenced against an architect, engineer, or builder as defined in this article, whether for his or her own act or omission or failure to act, for the act or omission or failure to act of his or her agents or employees, or for the act or omission or failure to act of any person or entity, its agents, or employees, who are acting under the instructions, control, or supervision of the architect, engineer, or builder.
(c) This section shall apply and extend to every action or demand, whether commenced by direct action, action for contribution or indemnity, or by counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party practice and whether commenced by an owner of the improvement or any other person.
(d) This section shall not apply to, shall not be a defense for, and does not proscribe a cause or right of action against any architect, engineer, or builder who, at the time the cause of action accrues or arises, is the owner or is in actual possession or control as owner, tenant, or otherwise of the improvement.
(e) When the architect, engineer, or builder has been the owner or the person in actual possession or control, in whatever capacity, of the improvement during the seven-year period after the substantial completion of construction of the improvement on or to real property, but not at the time the cause of action accrues or arises, the time of the ownership, possession, or control shall not be computed as a portion of the time necessary to create a bar for the action or of relief by virtue of the passage of time after the substantial completion of the improvement.
(Acts 1994, No. 94-138, p. 183, §2; Act 2011-519, p. 830, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Ala. Teachers Credit Union v. Design Build Concepts, Inc., 334 F. Supp. 3d 1171 (N.D. Ala. 2018).
· cites it 30× “Consequently, because IBT is a mere continuation of DBC under Alabama law, the two-year statute of limitations within Ala. Code § 6-5-221 governs all ATCU's claims against IBT that specifically arise under the theory of successor liability.”
Aliant Bank v. Four Star Invs., Inc., 244 So. 3d 896 (Ala. 2017).
· cites it 6× “2003) (holding that the plaintiffs discovered a number of problems with their house more than two years before they filed their action against the builder and their claims arising from those problems were accordingly barred by § 6-5-221 ). 5 V. Count six of Aliant's final…”
Matthews Bros. Constr. Co. v. Stonebrook Dev., 854 So. 2d 573 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001).
· cites it 7× “See Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-221. [2] Matthews Brothers counters by contending, among other things, that its cause of action against the Sanford defendants was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations because, it says, the action did not accrue until a judgment in favor…”
Dickinson v. Land Developers Const. Co., 882 So. 2d 291 (Ala. 2003).
· cites it 4× “Insofar as the Dickinsons' claims against Land Developers arise out of the above problems, they are barred by the two-year statutory limitations period of § 6-5-221, Ala.Code 1975. Land Developers argues that all of the Dickinsons' problems put them on notice of facts that, if…”
BURKES MECH. v. Ft. James-Pennington, Inc., 908 So. 2d 905 (Ala. 2004).
· cites it 5× “" § 6-5-221(a) (emphasis added). Section 6-5-221(a) provides that all such actions must be commenced within two years of the accrual of the cause of action.”
Ex Parte Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co., 825 So. 2d 758 (Ala. 2002).
· cites it 2× “2000) (noting that because the limitations period set forth in Ala.Code § 6-5-221(a) applicable to certain actions brought against architects, contractors, and engineersbegins to run "upon the substantial completion of the improvements, rather than upon the injury to the…”
Bella Investments, Inc. v. Multi Fam. Servs., Inc., 97 So. 3d 787 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).
· cites it 14× “Therefore, the present case is distinguishable from Dickinson and does not *796 carve out an exception to Alabama Code § 6-5-221.” However, we cannot agree with the trial court’s determination regarding Bella’s claim that the imperfections in the siding were not concealed…”
Collins v. Scenic Homes, Inc., 38 So. 3d 28 (Ala. 2009).
· cites it 4× “2000) (noting that because the limitations period set forth in Ala.Code § 6-5-221 (a) — applicable to certain actions brought against architects, contractors, and engineers — begins to run ‘upon the substantial completion of the improvements, rather than upon the injury to the…”
Matthews Bros. Constr. Co. v. Stonebrook Dev., L.L.C., 854 So. 2d 584 (Ala. 2003).
· cites it 9× “Specifically, Sanford and SBA contend that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in finding that the statute of limitations for actions against professional architects, contained in Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-221, did not bar Matthews Brothers’ third-party indemnity claim against Sanford…”
Bielski v. Alfred Saliba Corp., 984 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (M.D. Ala. 2013).
· cites it 5× “Admittedly, Alabama has a new statute of repose for construction of real property: 1975 Ala.Code § 6-5-221. While Alfred Saliba Corporation does not rely on this statute, the statute would not benefit the company anyway.”
Henderson v. MeadWestvaco Corp., 23 So. 3d 625 (Ala. 2009).
· cites it 2× “2006) ("The common-law doctrine allowing a surety to assert all defenses available to its principal was in existence when § 6-5-221 was enacted. The legislature could have expressly limited that doctrine if it desired to do so, but it chose not to.”
— Ala. Code § 6-5-221(a) — 10 cases
Aliant Bank v. Four Star Invs., Inc., 244 So. 3d 896 (Ala. 2017).
“2003) (holding that the plaintiffs discovered a number of problems with their house more than two years before they filed their action against the builder and their claims arising from those problems were accordingly barred by § 6-5-221 ). 5 V. Count six of Aliant's final…”
BURKES MECH. v. Ft. James-Pennington, Inc., 908 So. 2d 905 (Ala. 2004).
“" § 6-5-221(a) (emphasis added). Section 6-5-221(a) provides that all such actions must be commenced within two years of the accrual of the cause of action.”
Ex Parte Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co., 825 So. 2d 758 (Ala. 2002).
“2000) (noting that because the limitations period set forth in Ala.Code § 6-5-221(a) applicable to certain actions brought against architects, contractors, and engineersbegins to run "upon the substantial completion of the improvements, rather than upon the injury to the…”
Dickinson v. Land Developers Const. Co., 882 So. 2d 291 (Ala. 2003).
“Insofar as the Dickinsons' claims against Land Developers arise out of the above problems, they are barred by the two-year statutory limitations period of § 6-5-221, Ala.Code 1975. Land Developers argues that all of the Dickinsons' problems put them on notice of facts that, if…”
Collins v. Scenic Homes, Inc., 38 So. 3d 28 (Ala. 2009).
“2000) (noting that because the limitations period set forth in Ala.Code § 6-5-221 (a) — applicable to certain actions brought against architects, contractors, and engineers — begins to run ‘upon the substantial completion of the improvements, rather than upon the injury to the…”
— Ala. Code § 6-5-221(b) — 1 case
— Ala. Code § 6-5-221(d) — 1 case
Matthews Bros. Constr. Co. v. Stonebrook Dev., L.L.C., 854 So. 2d 584 (Ala. 2003).
“Specifically, Sanford and SBA contend that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in finding that the statute of limitations for actions against professional architects, contained in Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-221, did not bar Matthews Brothers’ third-party indemnity claim against Sanford…”
— Ala. Code § 6-5-221(e) — 1 case
Ala. Teachers Credit Union v. Design Build Concepts, Inc., 334 F. Supp. 3d 1171 (N.D. Ala. 2018).
“Consequently, because IBT is a mere continuation of DBC under Alabama law, the two-year statute of limitations within Ala. Code § 6-5-221 governs all ATCU's claims against IBT that specifically arise under the theory of successor liability.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.