
In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Wangs Alliance Corp., No. 21-cv-10389-AK, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26712, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (District Court) considered whether a product manufacturer was barred by the Commonwealth’s six-year statute of repose for improvements to real property from joining the installer of the product as a third-party defendant. The court denied the defendant’s motion for leave to file a third-party complaint to join the installer, finding that the installer completed its work more than six years prior to the motion being filed. This case reminds us that Massachusetts’ six-year statute of repose for improvement to real property also bars a defendant’s contribution claims against third parties.
The Wangs Alliance case involves a subrogation action filed by State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance (Insurer) against Wangs Alliance Corp. (Wangs), a manufacturer of rope lighting. Insurer insured the homeowners, who experienced a fire in their home in 2018. The home was originally built in 2002 by Wellen Construction (Wellen). As part of the original construction, Wellen installed rope lighting manufactured by Wangs in the house.
Insurer filed this action in April 2021 against Wangs, alleging that the fire was caused by a product defect, specifically a high resistance electrical failure of the rope lighting. In November 2021, Wangs filed a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against Wellen, alleging that Wellen improperly installed the lighting in violation of the manufacturer’s instructions. Wellen opposed the motion, arguing that the statute of repose for improvements to real property barred any claims against Wellen related to its construction of the home in 2002.
The District Court acknowledged that Massachusetts’ statue of repose, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, bars tort claims regarding improvements to real property against any person involved in the design, planning or construction of the improvement after six years from the date of substantial completion or the opening of the improvement for use. The court found Wellen to be a protected entity under the statute. The court also found that the rope lighting constituted an improvement to real property because it was a permanent addition to the real property that enhanced its capital value, involved expenditure of labor and money and was designed to make the property more valuable. Since Wellen’s installation of the rope lighting was substantially completed in 2002, and a certificate of occupancy was issued in October 2003, the court found that Wangs was barred by the statute of repose from filing a third-party complaint against Wellen. While Wellen performed work at the house in 2018, just weeks before the fire, the work was unrelated to the rope lighting. Since Wangs provided no evidence that Wellen did any electrical work that could have impacted the rope lighting in 2018, the court denied Wangs’ motion for leave to join Wellen as a third-party defendant.
The Wangs Alliance case reminds us that Massachusetts’ statute of repose also bars a defendant’s contribution claims against third parties. Thus, subrogation professionals practicing in Massachusetts should be aware that the statute of repose for improvements to real property not only bars claims by plaintiffs against contractors for work performed more than six years prior to filing a lawsuit, it also bars contribution claims brought by a defendant.
Recent Posts
Categories
- Products Liability
- Evidence
- Experts – Daubert
- New Jersey
- CPSC Recalls
- Causation
- Subrogation
- Construction Defects
- Statute of Limitations-Repose
- New York
- Certificate of Merit
- California
- Podcast
- Experts - Reliability
- Jurisdiction
- Condemnation
- Maryland
- Uncategorized
- Negligence
- CPSC Warning
- Minnesota
- Contracts
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Rhode Island
- Pennsylvania
- Texas
- Florida
- Workers' Compensation
- Economic Loss Rule
- Cargo - Transportation
- Malpractice
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Water Loss
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Comparative-Contributory Negligence
- Contribution-Apportionment
- AIA Contracts
- Assignment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Civil Procedure
- Product Liability
- Res Judicata
- Arbitration
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- Litigation
- West Virginia
- Wyoming
- Oklahoma
- Builder's Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Georgia
- Illinois
- Insurable Interest
- Limitation of Liability
- Mississippi
- Made Whole
- Delaware
- Settlement
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Construction
- Premises Liability
- Joint or Several Liability
- Montana
- Duty
- Privity
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Massachusetts
- Landlord
- Tenant
- Building Code
- Arizona
Tags
- Products Liability
- Evidence
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Experts - Reliability
- Experts – Daubert
- New Jersey
- Malfunction Theory
- Subrogation
- Causation
- Construction Defects
- Podcast
- Product Liability
- Subro Sessions
- Texas
- New York
- Certificate of Merit
- Contracts
- California
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Experts
- Maryland
- Landlord-Tenant
- Jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction - Personal
- Statute of Repose
- Condemnation
- Construction Contracts
- Inverse Condemnation
- Negligence
- Louisiana
- Minnesota
- Statute of Limitations - Accrual
- Amazon-eBay
- Civil Procedure
- Georgia
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Illinois
- Pennsylvania
- Experts – Qualifications
- Made Whole
- Statute of Limitations
- Sutton Doctrine
- Water Damage
- Rhode Island
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Arizona
- Florida
- Public Policy
- Economic Loss Doctrine
- Design Defect
- Expert Qualifications
- West Virginia
- Amazon
- Negligent Undertaking
- Limitation of Liability
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Indiana
- Tennessee
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Improvement
- Negligence – Duty
- Warranty - Implied
- Apportionment
- Privity
- Malpractice
- Statute of Limitations - Tolling
- Spoliation
- Statute of Limitations – Discovery Rule
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- Independent Duty
- Ohio
- Settlement
- Michigan
- Comparative Fault
- Contracts - Formation
- Condominiums
- Non-Party at Fault
- Massachusetts
- Unconscionable
- Missouri
- Parties
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- Res Judicata
- Arbitration
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Wisconsin
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility
- Architects-Engineers
- Lithium-ion battery
- Internet Sales
- Anti-Subrogation Rule; Wyoming; Landlord-Tenant; Sutton Doctrine
- Oklahoma
- Sanctions
- Spoliation – Fire Scene
- Builder’s Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Exculpatory Clause
- Gross Negligence
- Insurable Interest
- Mississippi
- Daubert
- Standing
- Third Party
- Accepted Work
- Montana
- Independent Contractor
- Res Ipsa
- Workers’ Compensation
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- AIA Contract
- Betterment
- Damages
- Damages-Code Upgrades
- Statute of Limitations - Repose
- Washington
- Implied Warranty of Habitability
- Warranty - Construction
- Idaho
- First Party Claims
- Joint-Tortfeasors
- Forum-Venue
- Warranty – Express
- AIA Contracts
- Anti-Indemnity Statutes
- Indemnification
- Products Liability - Foreseeability
- Cargo-Transportation
- Contribution
- MCS-90
- Substantial Completion
Authors
Archives
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022