Du-Al Mfg. Co., a Div. of SOS Consol., Inc. v. Sioux Fall Const. Co., DU-AL

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtL.D. ANDERSON; MILLER; AMUNDSON
Citation487 N.W.2d 29
PartiesMANUFACTURING COMPANY, a DIVISION OF SOS CONSOLIDATED, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SIOUX FALLS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Defendant and Appellee. . Considered on Briefs
Docket NumberDU-AL,No. 17523,17523
Decision Date04 December 1991

Page 29

487 N.W.2d 29
INC., Plaintiff and Appellant,
No. 17523.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Considered on Briefs Dec. 4, 1991.
Decided July 1, 1992.

Acie W. Matthews of Pruitt, Matthews and Muilenburg, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and appellant.

Douglas M. Deibert of Cadwell, Sanford & Deibert, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellee.

L.D. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment. We reverse.


On August 10, 1970, plaintiff Du-Al Manufacturing Company (Du-Al) and defendant Sioux Falls Construction Company (SFC) entered into a contract for the construction of a commercial building in Sioux Falls. The roof started to leak within a short time after construction was completed. Du-Al initiated a lawsuit (roof lawsuit) on September 29, 1975, against SFC and Simpson's, Inc., the supplier of the roof system. On December 3, 1975, the parties entered into a formal stipulation concerning remedial efforts to be undertaken to fix the roof. However, the roof leaking continued despite numerous repair efforts.

In May of 1987, Richard Viehweg of Du-Al called Frank Boyce of SFC about cracking and spalling in the walls. On May 8, SFC inspected Du-Al's building. SFC ultimately hired Twin City Testing (Twin City), an engineering consultant, to do an inspection and analysis of the building. Twin City's report was completed June 16, 1987. Twin City's report mentioned some water leakage from the roof into the walls. Du-Al was provided with a copy of this report on July 1, 1987.

Thereafter, Du-Al contacted the Spitznagel Partners (Spitznagel), a Sioux Falls architectural firm. On May 19, 1988, Du-Al and Spitznagel entered into an agreement covering the exterior repair of identified roof and wall problems. Specifically, this agreement covered repairing exterior walls, repairing expansion joints as necessary, adding wall reinforcing in the main plant area and in the north wing, and replacing/repairing roof insulation and membrane in the main plant area and north wing.

On August 22, 1988, Du-Al's attorney filed a certificate of readiness for trial. On September 19, 1988, SFC filed a motion to dismiss based upon failure to prosecute the roof lawsuit. On November 28, 1988, the court granted SFC's motion to dismiss under SDCL 15-6-41(b). The roof lawsuit dismissal was affirmed in Du-Al Mfg. Co. v. Sioux Falls Const. Co., 444 N.W.2d 55 (S.D.1989).

Spitznagel completed their plans on February 1, 1989. On March 15, 1989, Du-Al contracted with Swift Contractor's, Inc. (Swift) to perform the repair work as per Spitznagel's plans. Swift commenced their repair work on March 28, 1989. Du-Al claims that while Swift was in the midst of this repair work, additional hidden construction irregularities and problems with the walls were first discovered on or about

Page 31

April 5, 1989. These additional construction problems included lack of adequate horizontal beams at the top of the walls, improper installation of vertical rebar, improper lapping of vertical rebar, use of improper grout, improper joint reinforcement, and improper attachment of bar joists to the wall.

Thereafter, on July 17, 1989, Du-Al filed this lawsuit (wall lawsuit) alleging that in 1989 Du-Al discovered certain wall irregularities and hidden conditions relative to the initial construction of the building. Du-Al amended its complaint twice to include an allegation of fraud or deceit. On March 8, 1991, SFC filed a motion for summary judgment based upon res judicata. SFC claimed this second lawsuit was barred by the dismissal of the earlier roof lawsuit.

In opposing summary judgment, Du-Al filed an affidavit of its president, Richard Viehweg. In this affidavit, Du-Al alleged that it did not know of these hidden or latent construction wall defects until 1989, at which time the roof lawsuit had already been dismissed. SFC argued that Du-Al knew there were serious wall problems since 1987 and should have brought this wall claim along with the other claims in the roof lawsuit.

On April 3, 1991, the trial judge entered its order granting SFC's motion for summary judgment.


On appeal, we address whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of SFC. We first note our standard...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Poppen v. Walker, 18374
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • August 9, 1994
    ...Wagner, 501 N.W.2d 348 (S.D.1993); Lamp v. First Nat. Bank of Garretson, 496 N.W.2d 581 (S.D.1993); Du-Al Mfg., a Div. of SOS Consol. Inc. v. Sioux Falls Const., 487 N.W.2d 29 (S.D.1992); Peterson v. Sioux Valley Hosp. Ass'n, 486 N.W.2d 516 (S.D.1992); Weiszhaar Farms, Inc. v. Live Stock St......
  • Loveland Essential Grp., LLC v. Grommon Farms, Inc., 11CA0722.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • February 2, 2012
    ...fact and a newly discovered fact in determining whether a claim is precluded); LaPoint, 970 A.2d at 194;Bolte, 587 P.2d at 812–14;Du–Al, 487 N.W.2d at 32;see also Coomer, 319 S.W.3d at 373–74 (though the injuries giving rise to the after-arising claims occurred prior to the original filing,......
  • D.G. v. D.M.K.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • February 6, 1997
    ...determined cause of action by the parties or one of the parties in privity to a party in the earlier suit. Du-Al Mfg. Co. v. Sioux Falls Const. Co., 487 N.W.2d 29 (S.D.1992); Melbourn v. Benham, 292 N.W.2d 335 (S.D.1980). This Court applies four factors in determining if this doctrine appli......
  • Healy Ranch, Inc. v. Healy
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • August 3, 2022
    ...of a trial court, affirmance of a summary judgment is proper. Du-Al Mfg. Co., a Div. of SOS Consol., Inc. v. Sioux Falls Const. Co. , 487 N.W.2d 29, 31 (S.D. 1992) (citation omitted). [¶18.] Our review of statutory text is also a question of law reviewed de novo. See Estate of Henderson v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT