Lord v. Customized Consulting Specialty, Inc.
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Wynn, Hunter, Steelman
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- trial verdict - appellate affirmance of trial court denial of directed verdict motion
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Trial court properly allowed plaintiffs' negligence claims against subcontractor defendants to proceed despite the economic loss rule and statute of limitations defenses. The court found plaintiffs had a viable cause of action for defective truss design/manufacturing.
Excerpt
1. Construction Claims — negligence in designing or manufacturing trusses — economic loss rule The trial court did not err by failing to bar plaintiffs' claims under the economic loss rule arising from the subcontractor defendants' alleged negligence in designing or manufacturing trusses used in constructing plaintiffs' home, because: (1) there was no contract between plaintiffs and the subcontractor defendants, and instead those defendants and the general contractorPage 636 defendant entered into a contract for the trusses; (2) there is a means of redress for those purchasers who suffer economic loss or damage from improper construction but who have no basis for recovery in contract; and (3) the subcontractor defendants had a duty to use reasonable care in performing its promise to provide reliable trusses to the general contractor for use in the construction of plaintiffs' residence. 2. Construction Claims — negligence in designing or manufacturing trusses — statute of limitations The trial court did not err as a matter of law by denying the subcontractor defendants' motion for directed verdict based on the alleged expiration of the three-year statute of limitations under N.C.G.S. § 1-52 in an action arising from defendants' alleged negligence in designing or manufacturing trusses used in constructing plaintiffs' home, because: (1) the statute of limitations shall not accrue until bodily harm to the claimant or physical damages to his property becomes apparent or ought reasonably to have become apparent to the claimant, whichever event occurs first; and (2) whether a cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations is a mixed question of law and fact, and the weighing of the evidence and credibility of witnesses is the responsibility of the jury. 3. Evidence — construction o
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.