Statute of repose

Statute of repose

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


A statute of repose, like a statute of
limitation, is a statute that cuts off certain legal rights if they are not
acted on by a certain deadline. Statutes of repose and statutes of
limitation Most courts hold that statutes of repose
are distinct from statutes of limitation. “Unlike a statute of
limitations, a statute of repose is not a limitation of a plaintiff’s remedy,
but rather defines the right involved in terms of the time allowed to bring
suit.” Statutes of repose also differ from statutes of limitation in that the
deadlines imposed by statutes of repose are enforced much more strictly. The
operation of statutes of limitation can be avoided or tolled by a number of
equitable factors, such as the minority of the injured party, or attempts by a
tortfeasor to conceal evidence of responsibility. Some statutes of
limitation only begin to run when the injury complained of is discovered. All
statutes of limitation are statutes of repose, but some statutes of repose
operate differently from statutes of limitation.
As the U.S. Supreme Court noted, statutes of limitation and statutes of
repose are often mistaken for the same thing, even by Congress in the enactment
of federal statutes. While the term “statute of limitations”
has acquired a precise meaning, distinct from “statute of repose,” and while that
is its primary meaning, it must be acknowledged that the term “statute of
limitations” is sometimes used in a less formal way. In that sense, it can refer
to any provision restricting the time in which a plaintiff must bring suit. …
Congress has used the term “statute of limitations” when enacting statutes of
repose. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1)(B)(iii)(I)(aa); 42 U.S.C. §
2278. And petitioner does not point out an example in which Congress has used
the term “statute of repose.” So the Court must proceed to examine other
evidence of the meaning of the term “statute of limitations” as it is used
in § 9658. A statute of repose may impose a much
stricter deadline than a statute of limitation. A statute of repose, in
contrast to a statute of limitations, “is designed to bar actions after a
specified period of time has run from the occurrence of some event other than
the injury which gave rise to the claim.”
Statutes of repose exist in a number of contexts. Some states have them in the
context of products liability law. Probate law is another area where
statutes of repose are found in many jurisdictions.
Simply put, the difference is that a statute of limitations is triggered by
an injury, while a statute of repose is triggered by the completion of an act.
An example of the statute of repose trigger is when a construction project
is “substantially completed,” meaning that just those items on a “punch list”
remain. In products liability
As such, a statute of repose may bar a remedy even before a cause of action
arises. For example, in a products liability action, a statute of
limitation may apply to bar lawsuits a set number of years after the product
causes an injury; but a statute of repose may also apply, barring an action
after a certain number of years from the date when the product was initially
delivered. For example, if a defective product sold to a consumer more than ten
years ago injures someone, a ten-year statute of repose might bar a claim even
if the statute of limitation does not. Because statutes of repose, unlike
statutes of limitation, impose an absolute bar to actions against
manufacturers, usually after the goods are delivered or installed rather than
the date when they cause harm, they are strongly favoured by industry trade
groups and opposed by consumer organizations and tort lawyers. In the
United States, statutes of repose are a part of legislative proposals for “tort
reform”. In estate administration
Some states have statutes of repose in the administration of decedent’s
estates, requiring actions such as will contests or claims that the estate owed
money to a creditor are barred by statutes of repose unless brought within
the prescribed period under which the claimant or creditor may act.
These statutes, the original nonclaim statutes, are less controversial. Public
policy favours the distribution of estates to the heirs with all deliberate
speed; after this, the estate is empty. Creditors of the decedent who do not act
upon receiving actual or constructive notice that an estate has been opened
have their claims cut off, and cannot disturb the peaceful possession of the
distributed assets by the heirs. References
^ P. Stolz Family Partnership LP v. Daum., 355 F.3d 92, 102.
^ CTS Corp. v. Waldburger., 134 S. Ct. 2175, 2185
^ Gray v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 821 N.E.2d 431; Kissel v. Rosenbaum, 579
N.E.2d 1322, 1326. ^ See, for example, Ind. Code 34-20-3-1
^ In re Estate of Brown, 587 N.E.2d 686 ^ In re Estate of McNabb, 744 N.E.2d
569, ^ For example, Ind. Code 29-1-14-1.

Leave a Reply

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