Okla. Stat. » Title 12 — CIVIL PROCEDURE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 109 (2026)

Limitation of action to recover damages arising from

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

design, planning or construction of improvement to real property.

No action in tort to recover damages (i) for any deficiency in the design, planning, supervision or observation of construction or construction of an improvement to real property, (ii) for injury to property, real or personal, arising out of any such deficiency, or (iii) for injury to the person or for wrongful death arising out of any such deficiency, shall be brought against any person owning, leasing, or in possession of such an improvement or performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision or observation of construction or construction of such an improvement more than ten (10) years after substantial completion of such an improvement. Added by Laws 1967, c. 360, § 1, emerg. eff. May 22, 1967. Amended by Laws 1978, c. 188, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 1978.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Getty Oil Co., 782 P.2d 915 (Okla. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Getty Oil Co., 782 P.2d 915 (Okla. 1989). · cites it 10× “At issue is the constitutionality of 12 O.S.1981 § 109. That statute bars tort actions against builders, architects, owners and the like for damages by reason of defective design or construction for injuries occurring more than 10 years after completion of construction of an…”
Consol. Grain & Barge Co. v. Structural Sys., Inc., 2009 OK 14 (Okla. 2009). · cites it 10× “2001, § 105 does not include the ten-year time period specified in 12 O.S.2001, § 109. I. Facts and Procedural Background ¶ 2 The following basic facts in this case are gleaned from the summary judgment record submitted with the certification order, the summary judgment order of…”
Oklahoma City Mun. Improvement Auth. v. HTB, Inc., 769 P.2d 131 (Okla. 1989). · cites it 6× “Defendants, each of whom assumed responsibility for all or some portion of the design and/or construction of Phase III responded to plaintiffs’ actions with motions for summary judgment alleging that the statute of repose at 12 O.S.1981 § 109 3 as well as all applicable statutes…”
Riley v. Brown & Root, Inc., 836 P.2d 1298 (Okla. 1992). · cites it 6× “District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma: Is 12 O.S.1981 § 109 constitutional in wrongful death actions in light of Article 23, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution? We have recently upheld the so-called architects’ and builders’ statute against a variety of other state…”
Smedsrud v. Powell, 2002 OK 87 (Okla. 2002). · cites it 3× “In an inviting footnote that proved prophetic, COCA noted that although the evidentiary material indicates the awning may have been constructed in 1982 and remained unchanged until after the time of the accident in 1995, Owner did not interpose for his defense below that…”
Lincoln Bank & Trust Co. v. Neustadt, 917 P.2d 1005 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996). · cites it 10× “Summary judgment was granted to Appellees under 12 O.S.1991 § 109, which precludes claims for a design or construction deficiency brought more than ten years after completion.”
Gorton v. Mashburn, 1999 OK 100 (Okla. 1999). · cites it 7× “¶ 1 The present cause’s resolution requires delineation of the ambit of protection afforded to property owners by 12 O.S.1991 § 109 1 — the ten-year statute of repose for design or construction defects in completed improvements.”
Christ's Legacy Church v. Trinity Grp. Architects, 2018 OK CIV APP 31 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “, in its Issues to be Raised on Appeal) that it seeks to raise the issue of "[w]hether the statute of limitations has [run] pursuant to 12 O.S. § 109." However, as Trinity accurately stated below, § 109 is a statute of repose, not a statute of limitations.”
Jaworsky v. Frolich, 850 P.2d 1052 (Okla. 1992). · cites it 5× “Builder contended that 12 O.S.1981 § 109 barred Owners’ tort cause of action because Owner did not file suit until more than ten years after Builder completed the house.”
Blaske v. Smith & Entzeroth, Inc., 821 S.W.2d 822 (Mo. 1991). · cites it 2× “2d 938 (1990); Okla.Stat. tit. 12, § 109 (1988) (ten years), constitutionality upheld in St.”
Loyal Order of Moose, Lodge 1785 v. Cavaness, 563 P.2d 143 (Okla. 1977). · cites it 2× “This appeal involves the constitutionality of 12 O.S.1971 § 109. This is one provision of an act passed by the Legislature in 1967 limiting the time in which persons may commence an action against an architect, builder, contractor or “any person performing or furnishing the…”
Sisk v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 2003 OK 69 (Okla. 2003). · cites it 2× “[2] An example of a statute of repose is 12 O.S. § 109, which bars, after 10 years, actions in tort dealing with deficiencies in design, planning, supervision, or observation of construction to real improvement.”
Show all 45 citing cases →
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.