516.097. Tort action against architects, engineers or builders of defective improvement to real property must be brought within ten years of completion of improvement, exceptions. — 1. Any action to recover damages for economic loss, personal injury, property damage or wrongful death arising out of a defective or unsafe condition of any improvement to real property, including any action for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained on account of the defect or unsafe condition, shall be commenced within ten years of the date on which such improvement is completed.
2. This section shall only apply to actions against any person whose sole connection with the improvement is performing or furnishing, in whole or in part, the design, planning or construction, including architectural, engineering or construction services, of the improvement.
3. If any action is commenced against any person specified by subsection 2 of this section, such person may, within one year of the date of the filing of such action, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 1 of this section, commence an action or a third party action for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained or claimed in any action because of economic loss, personal injury, property damage or wrongful death arising out of a defective or unsafe condition of any improvement to real property.
4. This section shall not apply:
(1) If an action is barred by another provision of law;
(2) If a person conceals any defect or deficiency in the design, planning or construction, including architectural, engineering or construction services, in an improvement for real property, if the defect or deficiency so concealed directly results in the defective or unsafe condition for which the action is brought;
(3) To limit any action brought against any owner or possessor of real estate or improvements on such real estate.
5. The statute of limitation for buildings completed on August 13, 1976, shall begin to run on August 13, 1976, and shall be for the time specified in this section.
6. Notwithstanding subsection 1 of this section, if an occupancy permit is issued, the ten-year period shall commence on the date the occupancy permit is issued.
Notes of Decisions
Blaske v. Smith & Entzeroth, Inc., 821 S.W.2d 822 (Mo. 1991).
· cites it 57× “In this case the Court considers the constitutionality of § 516.097, RSMo 1986, a 10 year statute of repose protecting architects, engineers and persons who furnished construction services from liability arising out of a defective or unsafe condition of any improvement to real…”
Magee v. Blue Ridge Prof'l Bldg. Co., 821 S.W.2d 839 (Mo. 1991).
· cites it 33× “The dismissal was based on § 516.097. [1] Among other arguments, plaintiff attacks the constitutionality of that statute.”
Lay v. P & G Health Care, Inc., 37 S.W.3d 310 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 16× “Lay’s claims against it, asserting that § 516.097 5 barred his claims. The trial court denied Schindler’s motion and the case went to trial on May 3, 1999, before the Honorable Donald L.”
Butler v. Mitchell-Hugeback, Inc., 895 S.W.2d 15 (Mo. 1995).
· cites it 7× “The trial court granted summary judgment as to the original contractor and subcontractors pursuant to the ten-year statute of limitations found in § 516.097. 1 Summary judgment was entered in favor of Mitchell because of a waiver clause in its contract with the plaintiff.”
Shonda Ambers-Phillips & Richard Phillips II v. SSM DePaul Health Ctr., 459 S.W.3d 901 (Mo. 2015).
· cites it 10× “As this Court noted in Blaske in considering whether the open courts provision was violated by the 10-year statute of repose for builders and designers set out in section 516.097, RSMo 1986, the failure to bring suit within 10 years extinguishes the cause of action.”
Thompson v. Higginbotham, 187 S.W.3d 3 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 13× “At issue is whether the circuit court erred in granting the motion on the basis of the ten-year statute of repose for builders that is set forth in section 516.097. 1 To determine this issue, we are faced with a matter of first impression in Missouri, i.”
Fueston v. Burns & McDonnell Eng'g Co., 877 S.W.2d 631 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 20× “The trial court granted summary judgment upon finding that no genuine issues of material fact existed and that Burns and McDonnell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law based upon the ten-year statute of repose contained in § 516.097, RSMo 1986. 1 The Fuestons raise one…”
Hayslett v. Harnischfeger Corp., 815 F. Supp. 1294 (W.D. Mo. 1993).
· cites it 30× “B) Controlling Legal Standards The crux of defendant’s motion for summary judgment is that plaintiffs action is barred by the statute of limitations contained in Mo.Rev.Stat. § 516.097 (1986). Section 516.”
Johnson v. Vee Jay Cement, 77 S.W.3d 84 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 6× “Second, Appellants allege that even if Vee Jay did properly raise the statute of limitations defense, their claim is not barred pursuant to Section 516.097 RSMo (2000) 1 and Section 516.”
Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2d 367 (Mo. 1991).
· cites it 4× “The plaintiffs point to § 516.097, RSMo 1986, which is the so-called "statute of repose" for claims against architects, professional engineers, and contractors for "a defective or unsafe condition of any improvement to real property, .”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.097(1) — 1 case
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.097(2) — 1 case
Thompson v. Higginbotham, 187 S.W.3d 3 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
“At issue is whether the circuit court erred in granting the motion on the basis of the ten-year statute of repose for builders that is set forth in section 516.097. 1 To determine this issue, we are faced with a matter of first impression in Missouri, i.”
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.