 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brown v. American Multimedia6/7/2005
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
This lawsuit arose after plaintiffs discovered that their underground water supply had been contaminated. From 1970 through 2003, various landowners controlled an adjoining seven-acre tract. Between 1970 and 1980, the Heritage Casket Company owned the seven- acre tract. Heritage manufactured caskets and was a wholly owned subsidiary of Marsellus Casket Company, Inc.
In 1980, Heritage sold the seven-acre tract to Bill and Peggy Britt. Subsequently, the Britts conveyed the land to the Bill and Peggy Britt Partnership. In 1984, American Multimedia, Inc. purchased the property from the Bill and Peggy Britt Partnership. Finally, Burlington Property, LLC, bought the land from American Multimedia in 1994.
Plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit against defendants, the entities who owned the land since 1980. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that these entities allowed chemicals to contaminate the groundwater supply. Plaintiffs filed nuisance, negligence, and trespass claims. They also asserted that defendants violated the Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substances Control Act ("OPHSCA"). Defendants denied responsibility and claimed that the Heritage Casket Company caused the contamination prior to selling the property in 1980. Defendants filed third-party complaints against Heritage, Marsellus, and Service Corporation International.
The casket company moved for summary judgment on all claims and argued that the ten-year statute of repose barred the third- party action. On 27 July 2004, the trial court entered an order granting the motion for summary judgment. Defendants appeal.
On appeal, defendants argue that the trial court erred by granting the motion for summary judgment. We disagree and affirm the trial court's order.
The standard of review on appeal from a summary judgment ruling is whether the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Moore v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 129 N.C. App. 389, 393-94, 499 S.E.2d 772, 775 (1998). "The moving party may meet its burden by showing that the nonmoving party's action is barred by an affirmative defense[.]" Id. at 394, 499 S.E.2d at 775.
Defendants contend that their third-party claims are not time- barred. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. ยง 1-52(16) (2003), for personal injury or physical damage to claimant's property, the cause of action, . . . shall not accrue until bodily harm to the claimant or physical damage to his property becomes apparent or ought reasonably to have become apparent to the claimant, whichever event first occurs. Provided thatno cause of action shall accrue more than 10 years from the last act or omission of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action. (Emphasis added.)
The plain language of the statute indicates that in cases involving property damage, a cause of action may not be brought more than ten years after defendant's last act or omission.
Our Supreme Court considered the application of this statute to third-party claims in Wilson v. McLeod Oil Co., 327 N.C. 491, 398 S.E.2d 586 (1990), reh'g denied, 328 N.C. 336, 402 S.E.2d 844 (1991). In Wilson, plaintiffs sued their adjoining landowners for contamination of their well water. Id. at 498, 398 S.E.2d at 588. Defendants filed third-party complaints against the pr
Page 1 2 3 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|