The INDsider -> Walter Pierce WED, FEB 3 10:15AM by Walter Pierce

LPSB loses Moss appeal

moss.jpgThe 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal today released a judgment upholding a lower court ruling finding that the Lafayette Parish School Board cannot sue an architectural firm for water intrusion problems at N.P. Moss Middle School.

In 2008, the LPSB filed suit against architects Corne-Lemaire, the firm that designed Moss, as well as the Alexandria construction company that built the school. Late in 2007, water intrusion problems were discovered in the school, which was completed in 1999, precipitating the closure of the school for the spring 2008 semester. A state district judge in Lafayette ruled that the school board could not sue the architects or builders because a five-year window between accepting the completed job and filing suit had closed. The board appealed to the 3rd Circuit, which upheld the ruling:
We find no merit to the position advocated by the School Board. Applying well-established jurisprudence to an analysis of this case, we find the School Board did not acquire the right to sue Corne-Lemaire until it discovered damage to N.P. Moss Middle School in 2007. ... As more than five years passed after Corne-Lemaire’s work was accepted by the School Board, the suit brought in 2008 was untimely.
Read the full judgment at the 3rd Circuit’s Web site.

Walter Pierce
About the author:


Comments (6)add
...
written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , February 03, 2010 - 05:15 pm
Aw shucks, the dumbasses failed to read the fine print, """ Water intrusion problems occuring after the roofing adhesive warranty expires, and the adhesive disintergrates, which in the south louisiana humidty occurs in approximately 5 years and 1 second, the corne-lemaire co.( "FIRMS ARE REPUTABLE $ BONDED ) shall not be responsible for shoddy workmanship, material disintergration, overbudget due to cost overruns, LUS ELECTRICAL HIKES ( DUE TO GAS FLUCATIONS, AND HAWAIIN VACATIONS COST FLUCATIONS.....YEAH THATS RIGHT, "" WE GOT THAT COVERED TOOO !!!!!
...
written by nolaf , February 03, 2010 - 06:13 pm
It makes no sense to me that a structure that is meant to stand for decades and decades has "a five-year window between accepting the completed job and filing suit". Isn't it plausible, and highly probable, that negligence doesn't always make itself evident within five years? Unless I'm missing something, everything I've read and heard about this specific issue makes me think that the law is the problem.
...
written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , February 03, 2010 - 10:11 pm
The law is the problem ! Which is usually the case, as in the laws are written to protect the money makers and not the tax payers...
The law protecting shoddy workmanship and the statue of limitations were not enacted with the well-being of the average citizen, you can count on this being true, the laws and policing of the laws is for the peeps who are instrumental in aiding the couillions get into office...
Therefore the payback to the cronys is to enact laws which may be skirted by the cronys, setting term limits on responsibility of construction defects or materials.....Our couillions are conveniently lax on any progress to file or instigate charges (lettin statue of limitations,lapse ) due to delays on hiring consulting firms from their party to study the faulty materials or faulty construction, all of this takes time and to many time, ""IS MONEY"". eh, CORNE-LEMAIRE !
This is how the cow eats the cabbage, NON ?

...
written by nor t hsidian , February 03, 2010 - 10:27 pm
They lost? Reallly? Does this suprise anyone? DUH!!!!!!!!
...
written by Crazy Krazy , February 04, 2010 - 02:27 am
I think the 5 year prescription is reasonable.
...
written by ragin_cajun , February 04, 2010 - 02:06 pm
So what, everything you ever build for your entire life is a potential legal liability for your entire life? I think the law is good. I think that after five years, it is pretty hard to separate negligence on the builder's part from negligence on the owner's part. If there were lifetime legal liability, then you could have something built, never maintain it, and then sue the builder for negligence 20 years later. That's ridiculous. LPSB couldn't tell in the first five years that the building was defective. Taxpayers should sue LPSB for shoddy maintenance.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.

busy 
Advertisement
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it