Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-8 (2026)

Limitation of action for damages based on construction to improve real property

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§657-8 Limitation of action for damages based on construction to improve real property. (a) No action, whether in contract, tort, statute, or otherwise, to recover damages for any injury to property, real or personal, or for bodily injury or wrongful death, arising out of any deficiency or neglect in the planning, design, construction, supervision and administering of construction, and observation of construction relating to an improvement to real property shall be commenced more than ten years after the date of completion of the improvement.

(b) This section shall not be construed to extend any shorter period of limitation under this chapter, including the six-year statute of limitations under section 657-1 or the two-year statute of limitations for damages to persons or property under section 657-7, as applicable, subject to the ten-year statute of repose under subsection (a).

(c) This section shall not apply to actions for damages against owners or other persons having an interest in the real property or improvement based on their negligent conduct in the repair or maintenance of the improvement or to actions for damages against surveyors for their own errors in boundary surveys. An improvement shall be deemed substantially complete upon the earliest of the following:

(1) The issuance of a certificate of occupancy; or

(2) The filing of an affidavit of publication and notice of completion within the circuit court of the judicial circuit where the property is situated in compliance with section 507-43(f).

If the improvement consists of multiple buildings or improvements, each building or improvement shall be considered as a separate improvement for the purpose of determining the limitations period set forth in this section.

(d) This section shall not be construed to prevent, limit, or extend any shorter period of limitation applicable to sureties provided for in any contract or bond or any other statute, nor to extend or add to the liability of any surety beyond that for which the surety agreed to be liable by contract or bond.

(e) Nothing in this section shall exclude or limit the liability provisions as set forth in the products liability laws.

(f) For the purposes of this section:

"Date of completion" means the time when there has been substantial completion of the improvement or the improvement has been abandoned.

"Improvement" has the same meaning as in section 507-41. [L 1967, c 194, §1; HRS §657-8; am L 1972, c 133, §1; am L 1974, c 73, §1; am L 1979, c 185, §1; am L 1980, c 70, §2 and c 232, §34; am L 1983, c 120, §1; am L 1994, c 164, §1; am L 2025, c 308, §1]

Cross References

Contractor repair act, see chapter 672E.

Statute of limitations; recovery from contractors recovery fund, see §444-28.

Case Notes

Where defendant argued statute of limitations set forth in pre-1994 version of this section barred plaintiffs' suit, plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issue of material fact as to their claim that statute of limitations should be equitably tolled as a result of defendant's alleged misleading conduct. 930 F. Supp. 1411 (1996).

In granting immunity to certain persons, section prior to 1974 amendment was declared violative of equal protection guaranty. 55 H. 7, 514 P.2d 568 (1973).

Homeowner's suit not barred because rights matured before 1972 amendments took effect. 64 H. 80, 636 P.2d 1348 (1981).

Section held violative of equal protection. 65 H. 26, 647 P.2d 276 (1982).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Newtown Meadows Ex Rel. Bd. of Directors v. Venture 15, Inc., 167 P.3d 225 (Haw. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Newtown Meadows Ex Rel. Bd. of Directors v. Venture 15, Inc., 167 P.3d 225 (Haw. 2007). · cites it 30× “They also contended that the AOAO's breach of warranties claims were barred by the ten-year statute of repose in HRS § 657-8 (Supp.2006) [hereinafter, the statute of repose] and laches.”

Shibuya v. Architects Hawaii, Ltd., 647 P.2d 276 (Haw. 1982). · cites it 54× “The appellants in this interlocutory appeal are the plaintiff and one of the putative joint tortfeasors in a negligence action; the *28 appellees are the other alleged joint tortfeasors who were awarded summary judgments pursuant to HRS § 657-8, which we considered in an earlier…”

Agustin v. Dan Ostrow Const. Co., Inc., 636 P.2d 1348 (Haw. 1981). · cites it 44× “HRS § 657-8 (1976 & Supp. 1980) prohibits any suit from being brought to recover damages for personal or property injury "arising out of any condition of an improvement to real property," unless it is instituted not more than "two years after the cause of action has accrued, but…”

Bidar v. Amfac, Inc., 669 P.2d 154 (Haw. 1983). · cites it 18× “The trial court initially granted a summary judgment motion in favor of defendant on all issues except negligence with respect to maintenance and location of the subject towel rack.”

Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co., 58 P.3d 608 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 8× “The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the engineer and contractor on the ground that HRS § 657-8 absolved them from liability because their services were rendered more than ten years before the incident.”

Bd. of Directors of the Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Regency Tower Condo. Proj. v. Regency Tower Venture, 635 P.2d 244 (Haw. App. 1981). · cites it 8× “In its appeal, Rognstad Associates and Rognstad contend that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss counts three and five as *511 being barred by the statute of limitations set forth under HRS § 657-7.”

Fujioka Ex Rel. Fujioka v. Kam, 514 P.2d 568 (Haw. 1973). · cites it 5× “Both the engineer and general contractor moved for summary judgment on the ground that their services were rendered on the building which had been completed before 1956, more than ten years before the collapse of the portion of the roof, and that under the provision of HRS §…”

Peer News LLC v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu., 376 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2016). · cites it 2× “2d 300, 308-09 (1997) (“Presumably the legislature was aware of the status of the law and the policies of the [Board of Land and Natural Resources], yet declined to amend the statute.”). Thus, we must presume that the legislature was aware of the OIP’s interpretation of HRS §…”

Water Comm'n of Hawai'i v. Nat'l Am. Ins., 930 F. Supp. 1411 (D. Haw. 1996). · cites it 12× “§ 657-8; (2) Plaintiffs’ claim is barred because it relies upon a bond signed by a person without authority to issue the bond; and (3) Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their gross negligence claim against NAIC because there is no evidence to support it, or alternatively, because it…”

Lexington Ins. v. Centex Homes, 795 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (D. Haw. 2011). · cites it 4× “Centex appears to agree that Hawaii Revised Statutes § 657-8 sets the applicable statute of limitations as two years after an action accrues, with an outside limit of ten years after the project is completed.”

Raffel v. Perley, 437 N.E.2d 1082 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982). “, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-8 (Supp. 1981). 6 But see E.”

Kest v. Hana Ranch, Inc., 785 P.2d 1325 (Haw. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Applying a ten-year limitation under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 657-8 (1985), 5 Hana Ranch contends that those claims are time-barred.”

Show all 15 citing cases →

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-8(a) — 3 cases

Lexington Ins. v. Centex Homes, 795 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (D. Haw. 2011). “Centex appears to agree that Hawaii Revised Statutes § 657-8 sets the applicable statute of limitations as two years after an action accrues, with an outside limit of ten years after the project is completed.”

Constr. Servs. Pac., LLC v. Mule-Hide Prods. Co., Inc. (D. Haw. 2025).

Darny v. Waiea Mgmt. Dev. Co., LLC (Haw. App. 2025).

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.