The defendant subcontractor brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff general contractor’s action as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act.
The defendant argued the limitation period began when the plaintiff first learned of a roof leak after construction.
The court held that mere knowledge of damage was insufficient to trigger discoverability because the plaintiff did not yet know the cause or which subcontractor was responsible.
Given the need for investigation and conflicting expert reports regarding responsibility for the leakage, the court found the limitation period had not necessarily commenced on the date the defect was first reported.
The motion to dismiss the action as out of time was therefore denied.
