Professional Negligence Law Reporter

An Oregon appellate court held that there is no continuous relationship exception to the 10-year statute of repose contained in Or. Rev. Stat. §12.115(1).

The estate of Richard L. Marshall and Marshall Associated, LLC, sued law firm Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, P.C., in 2017, alleging that it had provided negligent advice in 2003 regarding the potential tax consequences of a proposed business transaction. The defendant moved to dismiss the claim as barred under Or. Rev. Stat. §12.115(1). The trial court granted the motion, but an intermediate appellate court reversed. The state high court reversed the lower appellate court. On the plaintiff’s second assignment of error, the plaintiffs contended that the trial court had erred in concluding that §12.115(1) barred the negligence claim. The plaintiffs contended there was an exception to the 10-year statute of repose for a continuous relationship.

Affirming, the intermediate appellate court noted that statutes of repose set maximum times to file a claim, regardless of the date an injury is discovered. Here, the court said, the statute’s plain language is absolute and states clearly that “in no event” shall a negligence action be commenced more than 10 years after an act’s occurrence or an omission. The statute does not mention any exception, the court added, nor does it describe any events tolling the running of the period of ultimate repose. The court also found that the statute’s legislative history indicates that the statute’s time prescription is intended as an overall limit to tort claims, regardless of circumstances.

Consequently, the court held that in light of the statute’s language and legislative history, the law did not provide an exception for a continuous relationship. Finding that the plaintiffs had not alleged acts of negligence occurring within the 10-year statute of repose and rejecting the plaintiffs’ assertion that the defendant’s alleged failure to correct its original alleged negligence constituted a separate claim that bypasses the statute of repose, the court held that the trial court had not erred in dismissing the claim as time-barred.

Citation: Marshall v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 2024 WL 4057268 (Or. Ct. App. Sept. 2024).