Blog Posts
Construction
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Entertains Oral Argument on Significant Construction Statute of Repose Appeal in Aloia v. Diament Building Corp
On March 12, 2026, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Aloia v. Diament Building Corp., a closely watched appeal that could significantly affect the future of Pennsylvania’s Construction Statute of Repose. The key question presented to the Court is how the statutory phrase “lawfully performing” design or construction services will be interpreted. Pennsylvania’s Construction Statute of Repose has long provided architects, engineers, and contractors with a defined endpoint for liability arising from improvements to real property. Unlike the statute of limitations, which begins to run when an injury occurs or is discovered, the Pennsylvania statute of repose establishes a firm cutoff for claims, without regard to discovery or other equitable tolling. The dispute in Aloia arises from a residential construction project completed in the mid-2000s. Certificates of occupancy were granted in 2006 and 2007 to the original owner. In 2021, more than a decade later, homeowners who purchased the home in 2016 filed suit alleging latent construction defects. The contractor invoked the construction statute of repose as a complete bar to the claims. Both the trial court and the Superior Court determined that the twelve-year repose period applied to the claims alleging building code violations, dismissing the homeowners’ claims. Key Themes from Oral Argument On appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the homeowners advance an interpretation of the statute, asserting that the repose period did not apply where the construction work was alleged to violate the applicable building code. The homeowners asserted that a design professional or contractor who was alleged to have violated the building code was not a person “lawfully performing or furnishing” construction services, and, therefore, the construction statute of repose was inapplicable to the homeowners’ claim. At argument, the Court repeatedly framed the central issue as whether “lawfully performing” requires compliance with all code requirements or, instead, requires that the individual or person be lawfully entitled to perform the services (i.e. authorized). Interpreting the phrase “any person lawfully performing” to require full compliance with any and all applicable statutes, building codes, and regulatory requirements would effectively nullify the construction statute of repose, exposing design professionals, contractors, and subcontractors to claims decades after substantial completion. At argument, the Court discussed the statute’s underlying purpose was to promote a robust building industry, preventing unlimited liability by protecting those who work within the industry’s regulatory framework (i.e. licensing and permitting requirements). Additionally, the Court engaged in questioning focused on the fact that the failure to comply with building codes constitutes a construction deficiency, and that the homeowners’ reading makes other provisions of the statute, which require claims for design or construction deficiencies to be brought within 12 years, mere surplusage. Further along these lines, the Court also questioned the statutory or regulatory authority of an individual to bring a private cause of action to enforce the building code, noting that no violations were issued by the code official and, therefore, the homeowners were necessarily pursuing deficiency claims squarely within the construction statute of repose. The Court also engaged in a robust discussion regarding the structure of the statute itself. Looking to the grammatical structure, justices noted that the structure of the statutory phrase, “a person lawfully performing or furnishing,” in which the term “lawfully performing” modifies the term person rather than the terms building or improvement. The Court also scrutinized the statutory structure, as the contractor emphasized that the homeowners’ interpretation effectively rewrites the statute by inserting an additional exception into subsection (a), which establishes the general rule, rather than looking to subsection (b), in which the legislature expressly set forth the statutory exceptions. The Supreme Court’s decision in Aloia stands poised to shape the contours of construction liability in Pennsylvania and will determine whether the Commonwealth’s longstanding statute of repose will remain a meaningful barrier against stale claims against design professionals and contractors. Offit Kurman through Anthony S. Potter, Franklin C. Miller, and Robyn St. Hilaire represented the American Institute of Architects ("AIA"), AIA-Pennsylvania, the American Council of Engineering Companies (“ACEC”), ACEC/PA, the Structural Engineers Association of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Society of Professional Engineers, the Pennsylvania Society of Land Surveyors, and the Pennsylvania-Delaware Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects as Amici Curiae before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
March 17, 2026
Construction
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision Supports Legislative Finality Created by Statute of Repose
In a welcome development for Pennsylvania’s construction industry, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gidor v. Mangus reinforces the integrity of legislatively adopted Statutes of Repose. On October 23, 2025, the Supreme Court held that Section 7512 of the Pennsylvania Home Inspection Law constitutes a one-year statute of repose — eliminating the right to bring a lawsuit against a home inspector. The decision signals continued judicial support for the legislative adoption and intent behind statutes of repose. This decision arrives at a critical point, as two high-profile cases involving the Construction Statute of Repose — Aloia v. Diament and Clearfield County v. Transystems — are pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Each case threatens to erode the protections afforded by the 12-year Construction Statute of Repose, 42 Pa. C.S. §5536. In Aloia, plaintiffs argue that alleged violations of the building code toll the statute of repose. While the County in the Clearfield County appeal asserts that the ancient doctrine of nullum tempus exempts public entities from the Construction Statute of Repose. The Gidor court’s affirmation of the 1-year Statute of Repose is particularly relevant to the construction industry because the court’s decision heavily relies on its prior decisions interpreting the Construction Statute of Repose. The court emphasized that, because the statutory clock starts at a definite event independent of injury or discovery and is not subject to equitable tolling, the statute extinguishes any claim. Critically, the repose period upheld in Gidor was just one year from the date a home inspection report was delivered. The court’s reasoning underscores the judiciary’s willingness to enforce clearly defined legislative statutory repose periods. Moreover, the court’s acceptance and approval of a one-year statute of repose in Gidor lends judicial credibility to legislative efforts such as Senate Bill 399, which seeks to shorten the Construction Statute of Repose period to six years. By reaffirming the distinction between statutes of limitation and repose, Gidor strengthens the argument advanced in amicus briefs filed by Offit Kurman on behalf of leading A/E/C associations: the repose period must remain a firm and predictable legislative boundary eliminating all claims. If the Supreme Court follows its reasoning in Gidor, we anticipate that the Court will preserve the 12-year Construction Statute of Repose’s essential function of providing finality, reducing indefinite liability, and protecting the architects, engineers, and contractors from stale claims. Law Clerk Robyn St. Hilaire provided valuable insight and contributed to this article.
November 5, 2025
Construction
Pennsylvania’s Construction Statute of Repose Under Attack
For more than 40 years, Pennsylvania’s Construction Statute of Repose (SOR) has given contractors, engineers, and architects the assurance that liability for completed projects eventually comes to an end. That is because, after 12 years from substantial completion, all claims are barred, no matter when the alleged defect is discovered. That certainty, however, is under direct attack in Pennsylvania. Currently, two cases are pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seeking to expand liability in ways that undermine the statute’s purpose and create indefinite exposure for architects, engineers, and construction contractors. In our role as A/E/C industry advocates, Offit Kurman was engaged by leading construction industry associations to file friends of the court briefs (amicus briefs) in both appeals to Pennsylvania’s highest court. Offit Kurman Advocates for AEC Groups in Key PA Construction Case Nine AEC Professional Associations Advocate in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case What is the Construction Statute of Repose? A statute of repose, by definition, sets a definitive event for the statutory period to begin and then provides for an expiration period that is not tolled. The statute of repose differs fundamentally from a statute of limitations because repose can operate to bar a lawsuit before a cause of action accrues. By contrast, a statute of limitations runs from the time of injury or reasonable discovery of harm. For more than 40 years, the Pennsylvania Construction Statute of Repose has created a hard cutoff point for lawsuits brought against architects, engineers, and contractors who furnish design, planning, and construction services for any improvement to real property. Generally, this requires any such suit to be brought within 12 years of substantial completion. Once the repose period expires, all claims are barred, even if the defect was hidden or the injury occurred later. There are various policy considerations for the adoption of a construction statute of repose. First, unlike most products and services, architectural, engineering, and construction services that improve real property are intended to long outlive the owner. Because the intent is for buildings and infrastructure projects to have long life spans, which include renovation and rehabilitation, state legislatures have typically limited the time period during which construction professionals can be held liable for alleged design and construction defects. The reality is that there is a practical balance: involving years elapsing, records being lost, memories fading, and the individuals who were involved on the projects being unavailable, as a result of retirement or death, that makes defending against stale claims exceptionally difficult. By creating a clear endpoint, construction statutes of response protect the A/E/C industry while also ensuring predictable costs for owners and the public. State legislatures within 48 of the United States have adopted a construction statute of repose. Pennsylvania’s 12-year statute of repose ranks as one of the two longest statutes of repose in the country. Aloia v. Diament – The Meaning of “Lawfully Performing” The first challenge seeks to nullify the construction statute of repose arguing that the statutory provision which states that a person “lawfully performing” means that if a plaintiff alleges any violation of a regulation or building code the statutory period does not start to run. In Aloia v. Diament, a homeowner argues that because the construction of the home’s exterior envelope allegedly violated building codes, the contractor was not “lawfully performing” the construction work. On that basis, the plaintiffs contend the 12-year repose period never began to run, leaving the claims alive decades later. Offit Kurman’s amicus brief, filed on behalf of leading national and state design professional associations, including the American Institute of Architects and American Council of Engineering Companies, makes clear that plaintiffs’ argument completely erases Pennsylvania’s construction statute of repose by not paying attention to the plain and unambiguous text and purpose. Nearly every design and construction defect claim involves alleged code and regulatory violations; if “lawfully performing” meant “perfect,” the repose period would never commence to run. Instead, “lawfully performing or furnishing” design or construction services clearly means authorized, meaning that the design professional or contractor was licensed or otherwise permitted to perform the work. This interpretation aligns with Black’s Law Dictionary (“authorized or sanctioned by law”) and with the legislative purpose of the statute of repose. In other words, “lawfully performing” modifies the qualifications of the architect or engineer, not whether every detail of the design complies with every regulatory or code provision. Clearfield County v. Transystems – Public Projects and Nullum Tempus The second case on appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court arises from renovations to the Clearfield County Jail. The original construction of the Clearfield County Jail was substantially completed in 1981. In 2021, more than 40 years after its substantial completion, the county alleged design and construction defects in the original design and construction seeking to avoid the construction statute of repose by invoking nullum tempus occurrit regi—the ancient common law doctrine that “time does not run against the king.” The county argues that nullum tempus exempts it from the 12-year bar. Offit Kurman was asked by nine design professional and construction associations, including ACEC-PA and all Pennsylvania Chapters of the Associated Builders and Contractors, to prepare an amicus brief in opposition to the county’s position. The amicus brief emphasizes three main points: Statutory Finality – The construction statute of repose eliminates causes of action after 12 years, thereby legislatively abrogating the common law doctrine of nullum tempus. Sovereign Immunity Limits – Nullum tempus is a privilege of the Commonwealth itself, not counties or municipalities. Voluntary Contracting – Even if nullum tempus applied more broadly to a statute of repose, it cannot shield a governmental entity voluntarily entering into design and construction contracts to improve real property. If accepted, Clearfield’s argument would mean every public project remains open to claims indefinitely, driving up insurance premiums, discouraging bidders, and ultimately increasing costs for public improvements for the taxpayers of the Commonwealth. Proposed Legislative Reforms to the Statute of Repose Because of the importance of the statute of repose, Offit Kurman has provided legal advice to associations within the A/E/C industry on legal reforms to bring the 12-year statute of repose in line with statutes adopted by other states, so that Pennsylvania is not at a competitive disadvantage. In addition, the legislative coalition of A/E/C trade associations is seeking to address the potential negative outcome of either of the Supreme Court appeals. Senate Bill 399 is currently referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee and would shorten Pennsylvania’s statute of repose from 12 years to six, bringing it closer to the national norm. Why It Matters If either appeal reverses the findings of the trial courts or if legislative reforms are not adopted, the impact on Pennsylvania’s construction economy will be profound. The potential ramifications include: Indefinite Liability – Design professionals and contractors would face claims long after projects reach substantial completion, even into retirement or estate administration. Insurance Burdens – Design Professionals and contractors would be required to carry liability insurance indefinitely, even when such coverage almost certainly is not available. Increased Costs – Design Professionals and contractors will build risk premiums into proposals and bids for public and private projects, passing costs directly to taxpayers and owners. The construction statute of repose was enacted in 1965 to prevent exactly these outcomes. Offit Kurman’s Construction Practice Group continues to work with A/E/C design and construction to protect the industry. Franklin C. Miller, Jr., Counsel at Offit Kurman, played a key role in supporting Anthony Potter with the preparation of the amicus brief. We also acknowledge the valuable contributions of Law Clerk Robyn St. Hilaire to this article.
September 5, 2025
Construction
Future of Pennsylvania’s Construction Statute of Repose Hinges on Pennsylvania Supreme Court Ruling
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will decide a pivotal case that could significantly impact the construction industry and the application of the state’s construction Statute of Repose. Aloia v. Diamant raises key questions about how the phrase “lawfully performing or furnishing” design or construction services should be interpreted within the statute. The ruling could have far-reaching consequences for architects, engineers, contractors, and property owners, potentially altering the way construction defect claims are litigated in Pennsylvania. In Aloia v. Diamant, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld a trial court’s ruling that applied Pennsylvania’s Twelve-Year Statute of Repose to bar claims related to construction defects and deficiencies. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has now accepted an appeal from the homeowners, seeking to clarify the statutory interpretation of the phrase “lawfully performing or furnishing” in the context of construction services under the Statute of Repose. Several prior appeals to the Pennsylvania Superior Court have challenged the application of the construction Statute of Repose, particularly in cases where plaintiffs allege that design or construction deficiencies violate the applicable building code. Notable cases include Johnson v. Toll Bros., 302 A.3d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2023), Tibbit v. Eagle Home Inspections, 305 A.3d 156 (Pa. Super. 2023) and Venema v. Moser Builders, 284 A.3d 208 (Pa. Super. 2023). The plaintiffs in Aloia argue that the Statute of Repose should not apply where there are allegations that the design or construction was not “lawfully performed” due to violations of the building code. This argument raises significant concerns for architects, engineers, and contractors, as it could allow plaintiffs to bypass the Statute of Repose merely by alleging a building code violation—potentially nullifying the statute’s protective function. Legislative Response: Senate Bill 336 Recognizing the ongoing disputes over the Statute of Repose, the legislative affairs committee of AIA-Pennsylvania introduced Senate Bill 336 on January 31, 2023. The bill sought to amend Pennsylvania’s construction Statute of Repose by reducing the period from twelve years to six years, bringing Pennsylvania in line with most states and providing a legislative definition for “lawfully.” However, the bill was not enacted, leaving Pennsylvania with one of the longest construction Statutes of Repose. Key Legal Issues in Aloia v. Diamant The plaintiffs contend that the trial and appellate courts erred in dismissing their claims based on the Statute of Repose before trial. The case facts reveal that building permits were issued for the home’s construction, and a certificate of occupancy was granted on March 30, 2006. Additional certificates of occupancy were issued on February 20, 2007, following the completion of an addition and basement improvements. The plaintiffs, who purchased the home in 2016, filed suit on March 5, 2021, alleging latent construction defects. The contractor invoked the twelve-year Statute of Repose as a defense. The Legal Implications of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Decision Pennsylvania’s construction Statute of Repose provides an absolute bar to claims filed more than twelve years after the substantial completion of a construction project. Unlike a Statute of Limitations, which limits the timeframe in which a lawsuit may be filed but allows for exceptions under equitable doctrines (such as the repair doctrine or discovery rule for latent defects), the Statute of Repose is a strict cutoff for liability. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Aloia will have significant implications for the construction industry. If the court adopts the plaintiffs’ interpretation of “lawfully performed,” it could render the Statute of Repose ineffective by allowing plaintiffs to avoid its application through allegations of building code violations. Such a ruling could expose architects, engineers, and contractors to indefinite liability, fundamentally altering the legal landscape of construction defect claims in Pennsylvania. The outcome of Aloia v. Diamant is eagerly anticipated by construction professionals, developers and legal practitioners alike. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could reshape Pennsylvania’s construction litigation framework, potentially extending liability well beyond the current twelve-year period. Conversely, a decision upholding the Statute of Repose’s current interpretation would reinforce the finality intended by the statute, providing greater certainty for construction professionals. Until the Supreme Court renders its decision, the industry remains in a state of uncertainty regarding the long-term enforceability of Pennsylvania’s construction Statute of Repose.
March 17, 2025
Construction
Pennsylvania State Design Professional Boards Adopt New Regulations and Rules for Digital Signatures & Seals
On October 20, 2022, The Pennsylvania State Architects Board, The State Registration Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists, and The State Board of Landscape Architects adopted new rules and regulations governing signatures and seals. The final form of regulation approved by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) provides new guidelines and requirements applicable to licensed design professionals in Pennsylvania. Generally, state law governs the use and application of a design professional’s seal on work performed by the licensed design professional or under immediate supervision or responsible control. The changes to the regulations are to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The overall intent of the new regulation of Digital Signatures and Seals is to assure the public, including clients and authorities having jurisdiction, that work product (drawings, plans, and specifications) were prepared by or under the personal supervision of the Registered Architect, Professional Engineer, Professional Land Surveyor, or the Registered Landscape Architect. The regulations generally require mechanisms to allow the design professional, client, or code official to detect modifications by requiring standards for electronic authentication. The desire is to decrease the incidence of forged or fraudulent sealed documents by unlicensed design professionals. Because the regulation of licensed design professionals and the use of seals on technical drawings, plans, and specifications is regulated at the State rather than federal level Architects, Engineers, Professional Land Surveyors and Landscape Architects must carefully consult each State design professional Board in order to ensure compliance with the existing licensing laws and regulations. Impact for Architects, Engineers, Land Surveyors and Landscape Architects The new regulations in Pennsylvania generally recognize three separate mechanisms for affixing a signature and seal to final or complete technical drawings, plans, or specifications issued to a client or to a governmental agency for final review. The three methods are as follows: Physical placement of a seal and handwritten signature in permanent ink; Digital placement of a seal and a handwritten signature in permanent ink; and Digital placement of a seal and a digital signature; The second and third categories related to digital sealing with a manual signature and digital sealing with an electronic seal will now require some additional verification and authentication requirements. To this end, if the licensed design professional is affixing a digital seal or digital seal and signature, the electronic document is required to have an electronic authentication process attached to the digital document. Thus, under Pennsylvania law, if any data within the digital technical drawing, plan, or specification, which has a digital signature or seal affixed, the digital signature or seal will be invalidated and voided. The practical implication for licensed design professionals practicing in Pennsylvania is that if an Architect, Engineer, Professional Land Surveyor, or Registered Landscape Architect is affixing a digital signature or seal, they will be required to utilize software that will void or invalidate the signature or seal if an alteration is made to a technical drawing, plan, or specification. I have worked on the digital signature and seal regulations in connection with the various Licensure Boards since the summer of 2013. The regulations will take effect upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, which is anticipated to occur within the next month. If you have questions regarding the new Digital Signature and Seal regulations, please reach out at 717-980-3140 or apotter@offitkurman.com.
November 2, 2022
