Board of Trustees of Santa Fe Community College v. Caudill Rowlett Scott, Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 December 1984
• Docket Number: Nos. AW-19,AX-340,s. AW-19
• Citation: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 66,461 So.2d 239
• Parties: 22 Ed. Law Rep. 656, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 66 The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SANTA FE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Appellant, v. CAUDILL ROWLETT SCOTT, INC., et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 239

461 So.2d 239

22 Ed. Law Rep. 656, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 66

The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SANTA FE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Appellant, v. CAUDILL ROWLETT SCOTT, INC., et al., Appellees.

Nos. AW-19, AX-340.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

First District.

Dec. 21, 1984.

Rehearings Denied Jan. 22, 1985.

Robert O. Stripling, Jr. and Robert J. Denson of Stripling & Denson, Gainesville, for appellant.

James C. Mize, Jr. of Bull & Neilson, Orlando, for appellees Caudill Rowlett Scott, Inc. William Caudill and Wallie Scott.

Martin J. Mickler of Bullock, Childs, Mickler & Cohen, Jacksonville, for appellee W.W. Gay Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

Charles B. Carter of Jones & Langdon, Gainesville, for appellee Drake Contracting, Inc.

Herbert R. Kanning and Jack W. Shaw, Jr. of Mathews, Osborne, McNatt, Gobelman & Cobb, Jacksonville, for appellee Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Victor M. Halbach, Jr. of Marks, Gray, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, for appellees Arthur Lee Campbell, Craig H. Salley, Campbell, Salley & Associates, Inc. and Salley/Jackson/Reeger, Inc.

A. Graham Allen of Freeman, Richardson, Watson & Kelly, Jacksonville, for appellee T. Neal Kenyon.

Charles B. Carter of Jones & Langdon, Gainesville, for appellee Charles R. Perry Construction, Inc.

W.C. O'Neal of O'Neal & O'Neal, Gainesville, for appellee Mathews Systems, Inc. BARFIELD, Judge.

The Board of Trustees of Santa Fe Community College appeals two summary judgments entered in favor of the defendants below in related cases which we consolidated for purposes of this review.

The appellant contends that the trial court erred in determining there were no genuine issues of material fact and ruling as a matter of law that the Statute of Limitations barred the actions of the appellant. We agree and reverse as to both summary judgments. The second issue raised by the appellant is the trial court's denial of its motion to amend its complaints. Our reversal of the summary judgments renders the second issue moot on this appeal.

The issue to be determined by the trial court was whether the appellant knew or should have known of the corroded condition of underground pipes more than four years before August 21, 1981, on which date it filed suit against the architects, mechanical engineers, general contractors, and mechanical contractors involved in the construction of nine campus buildings.

The contract for construction of Buildings A, B, C and D was entered into in 1968; the buildings were occupied by the college in September of 1972. The construction contract for Building E was entered into in 1972; it was occupied by the college in August, 1975. Other campus buildings were also constructed between 1970 and 1979 by appellees and others; construction was substantially completed by the fall of 1979, after which time the contractors were no longer present on the campus.

As early as 1972, sporadic leaks had occurred in the underground piping system. These leaks were reported to the college, but were usually repaired by the contractors already working on campus, and were generally attributed to mechanical failures and breaks normally incident to large, ongoing construction projects. When the contractors left the campus in the fall of 1979, the physical plant department of the college assumed responsibility for repair of the leaks. In November, 1979, while repairing several underground leaks, the college discovered that the metal pipes were corroded and that the soil surrounding the corroded pipes was "gumbo clay".

In April, 1980, the college contacted a mechanical engineer who determined that the damage was caused by galvanic corrosion, which he attributed to the clay surrounding the pipes. Upon the engineer's recommendations, the college retained a metallurgist, Dr. Gould, who examined several pipe failures between April and October, 1980, and recommended a comprehensive survey to determine whether there was a system-wide corrosion problem. On October 26, 1980, the college called a meeting of the architects and contractors regarding the problem with the piping system. When they refused to participate in further study of the problem, the college retained Dr. Gould to conduct the study, which cost $25,682. Dr. Gould's report, issued in March, 1981, concluded that a campus-wide corrosion problem existed in the underground piping system and that it was caused by installation of the piping system in clay. Backfilling of the pipe trenches with clay was determined to be in violation of the specifications for the job.

The twenty-two count complaint included claims for negligence, breach of contract, breach of expressed warranties, and breach of implied warranties. Under each count, the college stated:

That as a direct and proximate result of the [negligence or breach] of Defendants, extensive leaks have occurred throughout the underground piping system which have been caused by extensive pitting and corrosion of said water pipes. Said leaks have occurred at regular intervals following the occupancy date of these buildings by the college, the first of said leaks occurring in [September 1972 (for Buildings A, B, C, D); 1976 (for Building E) ] and the last of said leaks occurring in [March, 1981 (for Buildings A, B, C, D); the latter part of 1979 (for Building E) ].

The defendants' motions to dismiss based on the Statute of Limitations were denied. In response to interrogatories requesting the date of discovery of the first corrosive leak and all successive corrosive leaks, as well as the precise location of each leak and the material used in the pipe, the college attached a list of 23 pipe failures occurring from September, 1972 to July, 1981. In response to defendants' requests for admissions, the college admitted its awareness of subsurface pipe failures since 1972, but denied knowledge of corrosion in the piping system before November, 1979. The defendants moved for summary judgment, based upon the above-quoted language of the complaint and the responses to the interrogatories and requests for admissions, asserting, "The leaks which are the subject of this action existed and were discovered more than four years prior to the filing of the action." In opposition to the motions for summary judgment, the college filed affidavits of several administrators, as well as the mechanical engineer and the metallurgist who studied the corrosion problem, asserting that the galvanic corrosion was a latent defect which was not discovered until November, 1979, and that the isolated leaks occurring before that date were thought to be normal workmanship problems accompanying any large construction project and were repaired by the contractors, who did not notify the college that there was a permanent problem. The affidavit of Dr. Turner explained that the "leak list" used to answer interrogatories was a list of all leaks which had been compiled to aid in Dr. Gould's study.

The motions for summary judgment were denied, apparently because the trial judge determined that the Statute of Limitations did not apply to the college, a government entity. The college was allowed to amend its complaint to drop and add parties defendant and counts relative to specific buildings. The college was subsequently allowed to amend the complaint to correct the names of two defendant insurance companies.

Defendants' answers to the amended complaint again asserted the Statute of Limitations defense and defendants again moved for summary judgment, asserting that the statute upon which the college relied in the hearing on the previous motion for summary judgment had been repealed, that section 95.11, Florida Statutes, governs this action, that the limitations period ran from the discovery of the leaks in 1972, and that the limitation period had expired prior to the 1981 filing of the suit.

The college filed a memorandum in opposition to the motions for summary judgment, asserting that the motions...