NAHB Legal Fund Helps Subcontractor Win in Construction Defect Case

Filed in Legal by on January 9, 2019 2 Comments

gavelNAHB’s Legal Action Fund scored another victory at the end of 2018, when a case it supported in Nevada, Donnelly v. Anthony & Sylvan Pools, resulted in a win for the building community.

The Nevada HBA, Southern Nevada HBA, and the Builders Association of Northern Nevada received a $10,000 grant to file an amicus brief in support of a subcontractor who was sued by a non-home owner for injuries he sustained after diving into an in-ground backyard swimming pool. The case represents the first substantive challenge to Nevada’s construction defect reform law, which establishes a six-year period of repose for construction defect claims, including those claims that result in personal injury (a statute of repose sets the outer limit on when a lawsuit may be filed).

The lower court sided with the subcontractor, and the plaintiff appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court. On Dec. 21, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s opinion and held that the statute of repose applied in this personal injury case against the subcontractor for its alleged defective design or construction of the pool.

The court’s opinion strengthens the state construction defect reform law, which Nevada builders fought hard to enact.

The NAHB Legal Action Fund is a resource for members and HBAs with litigation that impacts the housing industry. Applications are now being taken for consideration at the 2019 International Builders’ Show. The final date for consideration is Monday, Jan. 14.

For more information about the Legal Action Fund, please send an email to Lavon Roxbury or call 800-368-5242 x8359.


Comments (2)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Richard White says:

    Thank you! Defect litigation has been a catch all for frivolous lawsuits and finger pointing. Our system is broken and this victory is a step in the right direction.
    This victory should dissuade some attorneys from filing
    Such irresponsible suits in the future.

  2. Norman Hyman says:

    The decision involved interpretation and application of a Nevada statute. The decision would thus have limited applicability in other states, especially if different statutory provisions are involved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *