Utah Supreme Court

Does Utah's builders statute of repose bar all construction negligence claims after twelve years? Olsen v. Canyon Cove Apartments, Ltd. Explained

1999 UT 19
No. 970305
March 5, 1999
Affirmed

Summary

Plaintiffs sued for property damage from an apartment fire caused by faulty electrical work and improper fire blocking installed during 1976 construction. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of construction defendants, finding their negligence claims barred by Utah’s twelve-year builders statute of repose since the fire occurred in 1994, eighteen years after construction completion.

Analysis

In Olsen v. Canyon Cove Apartments, Ltd., the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether Utah’s builders statute of repose constitutionally bars construction-related negligence claims brought years after project completion.

Background and Facts

On April 18, 1994, a fire at Canyon Cove Apartments damaged plaintiffs’ personal property. The fire marshal determined the fire started from faulty electrical work and spread due to improperly installed or removed fire blocking. Plaintiffs sued various construction defendants who had participated in building the apartments, which was completed in 1976—approximately eighteen years before the fire. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Utah’s builders statute of repose barred the claims.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-25.5, which bars actions against construction providers more than twelve years after completion, violated the open courts clause of the Utah Constitution. Plaintiffs also argued the statute’s provisions were internally inconsistent and that a discovery rule should apply.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court relied heavily on its contemporaneous decision in Craftsman Builder’s Supply, Inc. v. Butler Manufacturing Co., which had rejected identical constitutional challenges to the builders statute of repose. The court found that the twelve-year limitation period constitutionally barred plaintiffs’ negligence claims, regardless of when the injury was discovered or occurred.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that Utah’s builders statute of repose provides absolute protection for construction defendants after twelve years, with very limited exceptions. Practitioners must carefully calculate limitation periods from construction completion dates rather than injury discovery dates. Constitutional challenges to the statute have proven unsuccessful, making early case evaluation critical in construction defect litigation.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Olsen v. Canyon Cove Apartments, Ltd.

Citation

1999 UT 19

Court

Utah Supreme Court

Case Number

No. 970305

Date Decided

March 5, 1999

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

Utah’s builders statute of repose bars negligence claims brought more than twelve years after completion of construction improvements.

Standard of Review

Summary judgment (not specified in opinion)

Practice Tip

When handling construction defect cases, immediately calculate the statute of repose deadline from completion date, as constitutional challenges to Utah’s builders statute have consistently failed.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Holbert

    November 7, 2002

    Prior domestic violence evidence is admissible under rule 404(b) to prove intent and motive in aggravated kidnaping cases, and a defendant who abandons leased property loses standing to challenge warrantless searches.
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Domestic Violence
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Search and Seizure
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Johnson v. State

    September 20, 2012

    A defendant may not obtain postconviction DNA testing when counsel made a tactical decision not to request DNA testing at trial, even if the defendant disagrees with that strategic choice.
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.