Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gades v. Meyer Modernizing Co., Inc.

Supreme Court of South Dakota

June 3, 2015

BLAIR GADES and LYNN GADES, Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
MEYER MODERNIZING CO., INC., Defendant and Appellee

Considered on Briefs, March 23, 2015

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DAVISON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA. THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY W. BJORKMAN, Judge.

JAMES D. TAYLOR of James D. Taylor, PC, Mitchell, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiffs and appellants.

MATTHEW D. MURPHY, ROGER A. SUDBECK of Boyce, Greenfield, Pashby & Welk, LLP, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendant and appellee.

GILBERTSON, Chief Justice. ZINTER, SEVERSON, WILBUR and KERN, Justices, concur.

OPINION

Page 156

GILBERTSON, Chief Justice

[¶1] Blair and Lynn Gades appeal the circuit court's determination that their cause of action was time barred, as well as the court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Meyer Modernizing Co., Inc. (Meyer). The Gadeses assert there are genuine disputes of material fact as to the date of accrual of their cause of action. They also assert Meyer concealed the existence of their cause of action. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶2] The facts of this case are largely undisputed.[1] In 2000, the Gadeses engaged Enercept, Inc.--a manufacturing company located in Watertown, South Dakota--to design and manufacture the structural insulated panels[2] used to construct

Page 157

their home in Mitchell, South Dakota. The Gadeses did not hire a general contractor to oversee the actual construction of their home; instead, Blair Gades assumed that role himself. In early 2000, the Gadeses hired Master Builders of Avon--a Minnesota entity--to install the footings, erect the Enercept panels, finish and shingle the roof, install the windows and doors, and apply the house wrap.

[¶3] On April 3, 2000, the Gadeses hired Meyer to install the siding, soffits, and gutters on the home. The estimate offered by Meyer and accepted by the Gadeses did not mention, or include charges for, the installation of flashing around the windows and doors.[3] By the time Meyer installed the siding, Master Builders had already installed all of the windows, doors, and house wrap. The home was substantially completed, and the Gadeses moved into the home, by late 2000.

[¶4] As early as spring 2001, but no later than 2002, the Gadeses first noticed water infiltration around window and door openings during rain and wind events.[4] This water infiltration resulted in standing water on the window sills and seepage into the door trim and floors. Similar instances of water infiltration have occurred every year since the Gadeses moved into their home, with some years seeing as many as 10 to 12 such incidents. The totality of the Gadeses' asserted injury in this case stems from these water infiltrations, the natures of which have not changed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.