No action (including arbitration proceedings) in tort to recover damages shall be
brought against any architect or professional engineer who designed, planned, or supervised
to any extent the construction of improvements to real property, or against any contractor
or subcontractor who constructed the improvements to real property, or material suppliers
who furnished materials for the construction of the improvements, on account of any
deficiency in the design, planning, supervision, or observation of construction or
construction of any such improvements or in the materials furnished for the improvements:
(1) For injury to property, real or personal, arising out of any such deficiency;
(2) For injury to the person or for wrongful death arising out of any such deficiency;
or
(3) For contribution or indemnity for damages sustained on account of any injury mentioned
in subdivisions (1) and (2) hereof more than ten (10) years after substantial completion
of such an improvement; provided, however, that this shall not be construed to extend
the time in which actions may otherwise be brought under §§ 9-1-13 and 9-1-14.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2021 · leading case:
Walsh v. Gowing, 494 A.2d 543 (R.I. 1985).
Walsh v. Gowing, 494 A.2d 543 (R.I. 1985).
· cites it 21× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 9-1-29, as enacted by P.L.1975, ch. 119, § 1.”
Nichols v. R.R. Beaufort & Assocs., Inc., 727 A.2d 174 (R.I. 1999).
· cites it 12× “or summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) the absence of contractual privity between the Nichols and Beaufort barred the Nichols from bringing any of these claims against Beaufort, and (2) the applicable ten-year statute of repose for filing tort claims against the builder…”
Desnoyers v. Rhode Island Elevator Co., 571 A.2d 568 (R.I. 1990).
· cites it 10× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-1-29, defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiffs’ action was barred by the ten-year statute of limitations contained in the statute.”
Boghossian v. Ferland Corp., 600 A.2d 288 (R.I. 1991).
· cites it 6× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-1-29, which bars any action for damages ten years after substantial completion of an improvement to real property, applied to the case.”
Blaske v. Smith & Entzeroth, Inc., 821 S.W.2d 822 (Mo. 1991).
· cites it 2× “2d 715 (1978); R.I.Gen.Laws § 9-1-29 (1985) (ten years), constitutionality upheld in Leeper v.”
Rose v. Fox Pool Corp., 643 A.2d 906 (Md. 1994).
· cites it 2× “5839 (1987) (state licensed architects and professional engineers); R.I.Gen.Laws § 9-1-29 (1985) (architects, professional engineers, contractors, subcontractors, and materialmen); Tex.”
Montaup Elec. Co. v. Ohio Brass Corp., 561 F. Supp. 740 (D.R.I. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Ohio Brass seeks summary judgment based on Montaup’s failure to comply with the time limitations imposed by either R.I. Gen.Laws § 9-1-29 or Mass.Gen.Laws Ann.”
State v. Almonte, 644 A.2d 295 (R.I. 1994).
· cites it 2× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-1-29 that claimants bring actions in tort against contractors within ten years of the substantial completion of a project has been held not to violate article 1, section 5.”
Allbee v. Crane Co., 644 A.2d 308 (R.I. 1994).
· cites it 3× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-1-29, that bars an action in tort against, inter alia, engineers, contractors or subcontractors for deficiencies of construction or design more than ten years after the project has been completed.”
Leeper v. Hillier Grp., Architects Planners, P.A., 543 A.2d 258 (R.I. 1988).
· cites it 3× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-1-29, which in essence provides that those who seek to recover damages for negligence from architects, professional engineers, contractors, subcontractors, or materialmen arising as a result of the design or construction of an improvement to real…”
Benner v. J.H. Lynch & Sons, Inc., 641 A.2d 332 (R.I. 1994).
“Subject to the statute of repose, § 9-1-29, this right of action would only accrue when the latent defect and its harmful effects were discovered.”
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.