Dean Ingram & a.
Michael C. Drouin & a
Argued January 7, 2015
Under New Hampshire procedural rule this decision is subject to motion for rehearing, as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire reports.
Tarbell & Brodich Professional Association, of Concord ( Friedrich K. Moeckel on the brief and orally), for the plaintiffs.
Getman, Schulthess & Steere, P.A., of Manchester ( Elizabeth L. Hurley and Clara E. Lyons on the brief, and Ms. Hurley orally), for the defendants.
DALIANIS, C.J. CONBOY, LYNN, and BASSETT, JJ., concurred.
The plaintiffs, Dean and Suzanne Ingram, appeal an order of the Superior Court ( O'Neill, J.) granting summary judgment to the defendants, Michael C. Drouin and Drouin Builders, Inc. (Drouin Builders), on the plaintiffs' claims for damages. We affirm.
The record establishes the following facts. The plaintiffs own a house in Laconia. The lot on which the house sits was purchased bye Drouin Builders in January 2000 and then conveyed to Drouin Builders' sole shareholder, Drouin. Thereafter, the defendants built the house, which was completed in 2001. Drouin lived there until 2005, when he sold the house to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contend that they did not notice any problems with the house until 2008.
In 2011, the plaintiffs brought a writ seeking damages against the defendants for their " failure to properly construct" the house. The writ alleges latent defects in the construction of the home, including the following: (1) failing to build the house with sufficient floor joists; (2) failing to follow manufacturer instructions; (3) improperly mixing different kinds of lumber in framing the floors; (4) failing to install or improperly installing carrying beams; (5) improperly constructing wall framing; (6) improperly installing the foundation and basement floor; (7) failing to install or improperly installing flashing and roofing; (8) improperly installing exterior concrete slabs and asphalt paving; and (9) improperly installing sheathing and siding. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted because it concluded that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the eight-year statute of repose for " Damages From Construction," RSA 508:4-b, I (2010). This appeal followed.
In reviewing the trial court's grant of summary judgment, we consider the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Camire v. Gunstock Area Comm'n, 166 N.H. 374, 376, 97 A.3d 250 (2014). If our review of that evidence discloses no genuine issue of material fact, and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we will affirm ...