No action to recover for any injury to property, real or personal, or for bodily injury or wrongful death, arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, nor any action for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained as a result of such injury, shall be brought against any person performing or furnishing the design, planning, surveying, supervision of construction, or construction of such improvement to real property more than five years after the performance or furnishing of such services and construction.
The limitation prescribed in this section shall not apply to the manufacturer or supplier of any equipment or machinery or other articles installed in a structure upon real property, nor to any person in actual possession and in control of the improvement as owner, tenant or otherwise at the time the defective or unsafe condition of such improvement constitutes the proximate cause of the injury or damage for which the action is brought; rather each such action shall be brought within the time next after such injury occurs as provided in §§ 8.01-243 and 8.01-246.
Code 1950, § 8-24.2; 1964, c. 333; 1968, c. 103; 1973, c. 247; 1977, c. 617.
Notes of Decisions
Sch. Bd. v. United States Gypsum Co., 360 S.E.2d 325 (Va. 1987).
· cites it 100× “In answer to the complaint, the defendants contended that the cause of action asserted by the plaintiffs was extinguished by Code § 8.01-250. [1] In response, the plaintiffs contended that this statute merely barred the right of action, and that Code § 8.”
Commonwealth v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 385 S.E.2d 865 (Va. 1989).
· cites it 80× “In this appeal, we consider whether, as the trial court ruled, Code § 8.01-250, [1] a statute of repose, operates against the Commonwealth.”
Baker v. Poolservice Co., 636 S.E.2d 360 (Va. 2006).
· cites it 46× “" Hayward filed a plea in bar to the amended motion for judgment, asserting the five-year statute of repose in Code § 8.01-250 barred Baker's action because the drain cover was manufactured and installed more than five years prior to Virginia's death.”
Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Melendez, 537 S.E.2d 580 (Va. 2000).
· cites it 20× “2 In its grounds of defense, Cooper raised an affirmative defense that Melendez’s action was barred by the applicable statute of repose, Code § 8.01-250. Over Melendez’s objection that the plea in bar involved disputed factual questions to be resolved by a jury, the circuit…”
Jordan v. Sandwell, Inc., 189 F. Supp. 2d 406 (W.D. Va. 2002).
· cites it 43× “Conclusion to Jordan’s Claim Against Sandwell The statute of repose, Va.Code § 8.01-250, clearly bars Mr. Jordan’s claim against Sandwell.”
Hess v. Snyder Hunt Corp., 392 S.E.2d 817 (Va. 1990).
· cites it 20× “In this appeal, plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Code § 8.01-250 as applied to them. Code § 8.”
Jamerson v. Coleman-adams Const., Inc., 699 S.E.2d 197 (Va. 2010).
· cites it 46× “In this appeal, Kevin Jamerson asks us to reverse the judgment of the trial court dismissing his personal injury action because it was filed beyond the statutory limitation period provided by Code § 8.01-250. We conclude that the steel platform and pole which collapsed causing…”
Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Target Stores, Inc., 290 F. Supp. 2d 674 (E.D. Va. 2003).
· cites it 37× “Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-250 . 5 As explained below, ReUse’s motions based on the statute of repose contain no disputed issues of material facts.”
Cape Henry Towers, Inc. v. Nat'l Gypsum Co., 331 S.E.2d 476 (Va. 1985).
· cites it 11× “This appeal requires that we determine whether the five-year statute of limitations provided by Code § 8.01-250 protects parties who furnish ordinary construction materials which are incorporated into an improvement to real property.”
Pulliam v. Coastal Emergency Servs. of Richmond, Inc., 509 S.E.2d 307 (Va. 1999).
· cites it 10× “2d 817 (1990), we considered a challenge to the constitutionality of Code § 8.01-250, a statute of repose which, upon the expiration of a fixed time, "extinguishes 'not only the legal remedy but also all causes of action, including those which may later accrue as well as those…”
Royal Indem. Co. v. Tyco Fire Prods., Lp, 704 S.E.2d 91 (Va. 2011).
· cites it 28× “We conclude that exterior sidewall sprinkler heads are "equipment" under Code § 8.01-250 and reverse the judgment of the circuit court that the sprinkler heads are ordinary building materials.”
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.