Plumbing Engineer December 2016/33

multiunit development, if you are looking to assert a limita- tion on actions defense, then you need to take a number of steps: (1) perform a timeline analysis; (2) identify the statute of limitation and statute of repose (if there is one) for your jurisdiction; (3) define the scope of the work or improvement that is the subject of the claim; (4) determine how your juris- diction treats limitation on actions statutes with respect to different participants in construction ( i.e. , developer, contrac- tor, construction manager, subcontractor, design professional, supplier, etc.); and finally, (5) if the project has multiple phases or buildings, determine how such a project is treated in your jurisdiction. D'Allessandro addresses these steps based on the law in Massachusetts. Other states may treat these issues differ- ently. At a minimum, however, you now know the issues that need to be addressed in order to assert a limitation on actions defense. l Steven Nudelman is a partner at the law firm of Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP, where he is chair of the firm's Construction Contracting & Risk Management Practice Group. He is also a member of the firm's Real Estate and Litigation Departments and its Construction Disputes, Community Association, Alternative Dispute Resolution and Alternative Energy & Sustainable Development Practice Groups. the common elements and limited common elements of the condominium. Not surprisingly, the defendants moved for partial summa- ry judgment, arguing that the trustees' claims were partially barred by the six-year statute of repose. More specifically, the defendants argued that the statute of repose barred claims relating to six of the development's 28 buildings. In some sense, the issue came down to how the court defines an "improvement" in the statute of repose. Are we talking about one improvement or multiple improvements for purposes of the timeline analysis? As the Supreme Judicial Court framed the inquiry: [T]he question is whether the statute of repose was triggered only once (when the entire condominium satis- fied the statutory requirements of being [1] open to use, or [2] substantially complete and taken for occupancy by the owner); or whether the statute was triggered multiple times, as each individual building (or other relevant component) of the project met those statutory requirements. Ultimately, we conclude that the latter approach adheres most closely to the statutory language and the underlying legislative intent." D'Allessandro , 156 N.E.3d at 201. Thus, the developer prevailed and the claims relating to six of the 28 buildings were dismissed. What does this all mean? Regardless of whether you are dealing with a single unit or