Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 (2026)
Limitation of actions
✓ current as of May 2026
All actions, arbitrations, or other binding dispute resolution proceedings to recover damages for any deficiency in the design, planning, supervision, observation of construction, or construction of an improvement to real property, for injury to property, real or personal, arising out of any such deficiency, or for injury to the person or for wrongful death arising out of any such deficiency, must be brought against any person performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, observation of construction, or construction of the improvement within four (4) years after substantial completion of an improvement.
Amended by 2020 Tenn. Acts, ch. 749, s 38, eff. 7/1/2020.
Acts 1965, ch. 353, § 1; 1980, ch. 811, § 1; T.C.A., § 28-314.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: Chrisman v. Hill Home Dev., Inc., 978 S.W.2d 535 (Tenn. 1998).
Chrisman v. Hill Home Dev., Inc., 978 S.W.2d 535 (Tenn. 1998). “The defendants insist that the four-year statute of repose, Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-3-202 (1980), bars the nuisance claim.”
The Counts Co. v. Praters, Inc., 392 S.W.3d 80 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “Defendant moved to dismiss the action, relying on the statute of repose, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 . The Trial Court granted defendant’s motion and dismissed *82 the action, and plaintiff has appealed.”
Pridemark Custom Plating, Inc. v. Upjohn Co., 702 S.W.2d 566 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985). “§ 47-2-725, the statute of limitations for breach of implied and express warranties, T.C.A. § 28-3-202, the statute of limitations for improvements to real property and the plaintiffs’ failure to install a sprinkler system in violation of the local building code.”
Christopher J. Etheridge, Selena A. v. YMCA & West Tennessee, 391 S.W.3d 541 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “” The statute supplies an exception when an injury occurs in the fourth year following substantial completion, allowing suit to be brought within one year from the date of injury.”
Evelyn Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc., 347 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2011). “3 four-year statute of repose under Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-202 (2000) and that her breach of warranty claim was barred by the statute of limitations under Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-2-725 (2001).”
Henry v. Cherokee Constr. & Supply Co., Inc., 301 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “Plaintiffs argue on appeal that the Trial Court erred in applying Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-3-202 by transforming “the case from a negligent misrepresentation case into a construction defect case,” and in doing so applied the wrong statute.”
Lonning v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 725 S.W.2d 682 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). “The Chancellor sustained Jim Walter’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations, Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-3-202, barred the plaintiffs’ suit.”
Harris v. Clinton Corn Processing Co., 360 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1985). “1 (2) or by Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-3-202, where: (1) the action would be time-barred under the Tennessee provision but not under the Iowa provision; (2) Iowa’s “borrowing statute,” Iowa Code § 614.”
Dotson v. Blake, 29 S.W.3d 26 (Tenn. 2000). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-3-202 (imposing a four-year statute of repose on claims for deficiencies in the design, planning, supervision, or construction of improvements to real property).”
Prescott v. Adams, 627 S.W.2d 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981). “That section is T.C.A. § 28-3-202 which provides that all such actions must be brought within four years after substantial completion of the improvement to real property, irrespective of injury or discovery.”
Langford v. Gatlinburg Real Est. & Rental, Inc., 499 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (E.D. Tenn. 2007). “The above-referenced section, *1049 Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-3-202, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: All actions to recover damages for any deficiency in the design, planning, supervision, observation of construction, or construction of an improvement to real property, for…”
Greg Parker v. Holiday Hosp. Franchising, Inc., 446 S.W.3d 341 (Tenn. 2014). “Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 28-3-202, -203 (2000). Neither party has appealed the trial court's dismissal of the Parkers' claims against D & S Builders as barred by the statute of repose.”
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.