Opinion
C.A. No. 01C-05-230 MMJ.
Submitted: April 5, 2004.
Decided: May 25, 2004.
ORDER
Upon Motion for Summary Judgment of Delle Donne Associates, Inc., Incorrectly Designated as Delle Donne Associates t/a Highland Partnership GRANTED
1. On May 24, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking recovery for personal injury damages sustained as a result of an incident that occurred on December 6, 1999 at the ShopRite supermarket in Brandywine Commons, Wilmington, Delaware.
2. Plaintiffs contend that during construction or renovation activities at the supermarket, energized electrical wires were allowed to be left open and exposed in the drop ceiling area. One of the Plaintiffs came into contact with the open, energized wire and sustained injuries.
3. Plaintiffs allege that Delle Donne negligently performed construction activities at the ShopRite supermarket, causing the existence of a dangerous condition that resulted in injuries. In support of its motion for summary judgment, Delle Donne presented evidence by affidavit that Delle Donne does not own the property in question. Delle Donne performed construction management services in connection with the original construction of the ShopRite supermarket. The commercial construction project was substantially competed on or before November 24, 1993. On January 5, 1994, New Castle County issued a Certificate of Occupancy for the ShopRite supermarket.
4. Delaware Builder's Statute, 10 Del. C. § 8127, provides that no action to recover any damages shall be brought against any person performing supervision of construction of improvement to real property after the expiration of six years from the date of substantial completion. Like a statute of repose, Delaware's Builder's Statute bars the right of action even before the injury has occurred, if the injury occurred after the prescribed time period of six years. On the other hand, if the injury occurs before the expiration of the six-year time period, but the suit is not filed until after the running of the time limitation, the statute operates as an ordinary statute of limitations to bar the claim.
5. Plaintiff does not dispute that if Section 8127 applies, this action is time-barred as against Delle Donne.
6. Plaintiff argues in response to Delle Donne's motion:
There has been no determination in this case that the energized, exposed electrical wires touched by the plaintiff and which resulted in his injuries were considered to be "fixtures" as contemplated by the statute. Accordingly, there exists a genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment is not appropriate.
7. This Court has espoused the "common sense" definition of "improvement" as the term is used in Section 8127. An "improvement" is "a permanent addition to or betterment of real property that enhances its capital value and that involves the expenditure of labor or money and is designed to make the property more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs." Electrical wiring clearly falls within this definition.
Hiab Cranes and Loaders, Inc. v. Service Unlimited, Inc., 1983 Del. Super. LEXIS 648, *6-7, Martin, J. (Aug. 16, 1983).
See id.; Kirkwood Dodge, Inc. v. Frederic G. Krapf, Jr., Inc., Del. Super., 1989 WL 48639, Babiarz, J. (May 9, 1989) (circuit breaker panel box found to be "improvement" under "common sense" definition).
8. Summary judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Because Delle Donne has supported its motion by affidavit, the burden shifts to Plaintiffs to demonstrate that there are material issues of fact. Superior Court Civil Rule 56(e) requires that the adverse party's response must be by affidavit or in such a manner presenting evidence beyond mere allegations, setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine factual issue for trial.
Carriere v. Peninsula Insurance Co., 810 A.2d 349 (Del. 2002).
9. During oral argument, Plaintiffs asserted that further discovery might uncover facts which would place Delle Donne on the premises after issuance of the certificate of occupancy. However, Plaintiffs admitted that at this time, there are no facts indicating that Delle Donne provided anything other than construction supervision services during original construction.
10. It is undisputed that construction was substantially completed by November 24, 1994 and that the certificate of occupancy was issued on January 5, 1994. The six-year statute of limitations contained in Section 8127 expired as of January 5, 2000. The complaint was filed May 24, 2001. The parties have agreed that this action is time-barred as against Delle Donne unless evidence exists that Delle Donne provided construction or maintenance services after May 24, 1994. In the absence of specific facts, supported by affidavit or beyond mere allegations, indicating a connection between the premises and Delle Donne after completion of original construction, summary judgment must be entered in favor of Delle Donne.
THEREFORE, the Motion for Summary Judgment of Delle Donne Associates, Inc. is hereby GRANTED.