§5607. Actions against a professional engineer, surveyor, professional interior designer, architect, real estate developer; peremptive periods
A. No action for damages against any professional engineer, surveyor, engineer intern, surveyor intern, or licensee as defined in R.S. 37:682, or any professional architect, landscape architect, architect intern, or agent as defined in R.S. 37:141, or professional interior designer, or licensee as defined in R.S. 37:3171,1 or other similar licensee licensed under the laws of this state, or real estate developer relative to development plans which have been certified by a professional engineer or professional architect, whether based upon tort, or breach of contract, or otherwise arising out of an engagement to provide any manner of movable or immovable planning, construction, design, or building, which may include but is not limited to consultation, planning, designs, drawings, specifications, investigation, evaluation, measuring, or administration related to any building, construction, demolition, or work, shall be brought unless filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and proper venue at the latest within five years from:
(1) The date of registry in the mortgage office of acceptance of the work by owner; or
(2) The date the owner has occupied or taken possession of the improvement, in whole or in part, if no such acceptance is recorded; or
(3) The date the person furnishing such services has completed the services with regard to actions against that person, if the person performing or furnishing the services, as described herein, does not render the services preparatory to construction, or if the person furnishes such services preparatory to construction but the person furnishing such services does not perform any inspection of the work.
B. The provisions of this Section shall apply to all persons whether or not infirm or under disability of any kind and including minors and interdicts.
C. The five-year period of limitation provided for in Subsection A of this Section is a peremptive period within the meaning of Civil Code Article 3458 and in accordance with Civil Code Article 3461, may not be renounced, interrupted, or suspended.
D. The provisions of this Section shall take precedence over and supersede the provisions of R.S. 9:2772 and Civil Code Articles 2762 and 3545.
E. The peremptive period provided in Subsection A of this Section shall not apply in cases of fraud, as defined in Civil Code Article 1953.
F. The peremptive periods provided in Subsections A and B of this Section shall not apply to any proceedings initiated by the Louisiana Professional Engineering and Land Surveying Board or the State Board of Architectural Examiners.
Added by Acts 2003, No. 854, §1; Acts 2006, No. 732, §1.
Notes of Decisions
Metairie III v. Poche' Constr., Inc., 49 So. 3d 446 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 13× “On August 25, 2009, Perrin & Carter again filed an exception of peremption in the district court, alleging the applicability of a five-year peremptive period pertaining to suits against engineers and architects under La.Rev.Stat. § 9:5607. Labiche Plumbing did not oppose, and on…”
MR Pittman Grp., LLC v. Plaquemines Par. Gov't, 182 So. 3d 291 (La. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 14× “R.S. 9:5607 displaces the general one-year limitations period for delictual actions provided by Article 3942 of the Louisiana Civil Code.”
Ebinger v. Venus Constr. Corp., 65 So. 3d 1279 (La. 2011).
· cites it 5× “R.S. 9:5607, 1 which governs damages actions against engineers and establishes a five-year peremptive period for such claims.”
Patriot v. Mississippi Land Holdings, 948 So. 2d 249 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 15× “R.S. 9:5607. The trial court dismissed both parties without prejudice finding that the peremptive period of La.”
Lee v. Prof'l Const. Servs., Inc., 982 So. 2d 837 (La. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 14× “Second, it turns on whether the plaintiffs' claim vested before the 2003 enactment of R.S. 9:5607 and therefore R.S. 9:5607 could only be applied retroactively in violation of La.”
Kroger Co. v. L.G. Barcus & Sons, Inc., 13 So. 3d 1232 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “R.S. 9:5607 now provides for a five-year liberative prescriptive/peremptive period in all actions, tort or contract, against, inter alia, professional engineers.”
Wong v. Hoffman, 973 So. 2d 4 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
“R.S. 9:5607 provides for a five-year peremptive period for professional engineers, surveyors, engineer interns, surveyor interns or licensees, professional architects, landscape architects, interns, or agents, or professional interior designers or licensees, or real estate…”
City of Shreveport v. CDM Smith, Inc., No. 56,154-CW (La. Ct. App. July 16, 2025).
· cites it 41× “R.S. 9:5607 is applicable, that peremption began to run upon termination of the relationship between it and BKI in 2019 and that, therefore, its negligence causes of action against BKI have not prescribed.”
Boes Iron Works, Inc. v. M.D. Descant, Inc., 154 So. 3d 555 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 5× “R.S. 9:5607. The City/Parish argues that Smith Tipton had sufficient notice of the indemnity claim, and as a result, suffered no prejudice.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5607(A)(1): 3 cases
Lee v. Prof'l Const. Servs., Inc., 982 So. 2d 837 (La. Ct. App. 2008).
“Second, it turns on whether the plaintiffs' claim vested before the 2003 enactment of R.S. 9:5607 and therefore R.S. 9:5607 could only be applied retroactively in violation of La.”
Boes Iron Works, Inc. v. M.D. Descant, Inc., 154 So. 3d 555 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
“R.S. 9:5607. The City/Parish argues that Smith Tipton had sufficient notice of the indemnity claim, and as a result, suffered no prejudice.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5607(A)(3): 4 cases
City of Shreveport v. CDM Smith, Inc., No. 56,154-CW (La. Ct. App. July 16, 2025).
“R.S. 9:5607 is applicable, that peremption began to run upon termination of the relationship between it and BKI in 2019 and that, therefore, its negligence causes of action against BKI have not prescribed.”
City of Shreveport v. CDM Smith, Inc.; Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc.; Black & Veatch Constr., Inc.; Black & Veatch Corp.; Black & Veatch Mgmt. Consulting, LLC; Black & Veatch Pritchard, Inc.; Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.; Fleaux Servs. of Louisiana, LLC; Fleaux Solutions, LLC; Kerry Coker; Briones Consulting & Eng'g, LTD; Delmet Servs., LLC; Hall Builders, Inc.; IMS Engineers, Inc.; KJMK Mgmt., Inc.; Williams Creative Grp., Inc.; Belt Constr., Inc.; BLD Servs., LLC; Crocker Constr., LLC; Dixie Overland Constr., LLC; Don M. Barron Contractor, Inc.; Hemphill Constr. Co., Inc.; Insituform Tech., LLC; John Plott Co., Inc.; Mac Contracting Grp., Inc.; Mitchell Contracting, Inc.; PM Constr. & Rehab, LLC; Pulley Constr., Inc.; S&J Constr. Co., Inc. of Arkansas; SAK Constr., LLC.; Suncoast Infrastructure, Inc.; Yor-Wic Constr. Co., Inc., 426 So. 3d 186 (La. Ct. App. 2025).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5607(C): 1 case
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5607(D): 2 cases
Lee v. Prof'l Const. Servs., Inc., 982 So. 2d 837 (La. Ct. App. 2008).
“Second, it turns on whether the plaintiffs' claim vested before the 2003 enactment of R.S. 9:5607 and therefore R.S. 9:5607 could only be applied retroactively in violation of La.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5607(E): 2 cases
City of Shreveport v. CDM Smith, Inc., No. 56,154-CW (La. Ct. App. July 16, 2025).
“R.S. 9:5607 is applicable, that peremption began to run upon termination of the relationship between it and BKI in 2019 and that, therefore, its negligence causes of action against BKI have not prescribed.”
City of Shreveport v. CDM Smith, Inc.; Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc.; Black & Veatch Constr., Inc.; Black & Veatch Corp.; Black & Veatch Mgmt. Consulting, LLC; Black & Veatch Pritchard, Inc.; Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.; Fleaux Servs. of Louisiana, LLC; Fleaux Solutions, LLC; Kerry Coker; Briones Consulting & Eng'g, LTD; Delmet Servs., LLC; Hall Builders, Inc.; IMS Engineers, Inc.; KJMK Mgmt., Inc.; Williams Creative Grp., Inc.; Belt Constr., Inc.; BLD Servs., LLC; Crocker Constr., LLC; Dixie Overland Constr., LLC; Don M. Barron Contractor, Inc.; Hemphill Constr. Co., Inc.; Insituform Tech., LLC; John Plott Co., Inc.; Mac Contracting Grp., Inc.; Mitchell Contracting, Inc.; PM Constr. & Rehab, LLC; Pulley Constr., Inc.; S&J Constr. Co., Inc. of Arkansas; SAK Constr., LLC.; Suncoast Infrastructure, Inc.; Yor-Wic Constr. Co., Inc., 426 So. 3d 186 (La. Ct. App. 2025).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5607(F): 2 cases
City of Shreveport v. CDM Smith, Inc., No. 56,154-CW (La. Ct. App. July 16, 2025).
“R.S. 9:5607 is applicable, that peremption began to run upon termination of the relationship between it and BKI in 2019 and that, therefore, its negligence causes of action against BKI have not prescribed.”
City of Shreveport v. CDM Smith, Inc.; Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc.; Black & Veatch Constr., Inc.; Black & Veatch Corp.; Black & Veatch Mgmt. Consulting, LLC; Black & Veatch Pritchard, Inc.; Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.; Fleaux Servs. of Louisiana, LLC; Fleaux Solutions, LLC; Kerry Coker; Briones Consulting & Eng'g, LTD; Delmet Servs., LLC; Hall Builders, Inc.; IMS Engineers, Inc.; KJMK Mgmt., Inc.; Williams Creative Grp., Inc.; Belt Constr., Inc.; BLD Servs., LLC; Crocker Constr., LLC; Dixie Overland Constr., LLC; Don M. Barron Contractor, Inc.; Hemphill Constr. Co., Inc.; Insituform Tech., LLC; John Plott Co., Inc.; Mac Contracting Grp., Inc.; Mitchell Contracting, Inc.; PM Constr. & Rehab, LLC; Pulley Constr., Inc.; S&J Constr. Co., Inc. of Arkansas; SAK Constr., LLC.; Suncoast Infrastructure, Inc.; Yor-Wic Constr. Co., Inc., 426 So. 3d 186 (La. Ct. 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.