{"id":1478359,"date":"2025-10-28T09:34:07","date_gmt":"2025-10-28T14:34:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/plusweb.org\/?p=1478359"},"modified":"2025-10-28T09:34:07","modified_gmt":"2025-10-28T14:34:07","slug":"pennsylvania-supreme-court-strengthens-legal-protections-for-home-inspectors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/plusweb.org\/news\/pennsylvania-supreme-court-strengthens-legal-protections-for-home-inspectors\/","title":{"rendered":"Pennsylvania Supreme Court Strengthens Legal Protections for Home Inspectors"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently affirmed that home inspectors in Pennsylvania are protected by a one-year statute of repose under the state\u2019s Home Inspection Law. This means that any lawsuit against a home inspector must be filed within one year of the inspection\u2014regardless of when the problem is discovered.<\/p>\n

In Gidor v. Mangus d\/b\/a Mangus Inspections<\/em>, 2024 WL 80950 (Pa. Super. Jan. 8, 2024), the Superior Court found that Section 7512 of the Pennsylvania Home Inspection Law (68 Pa.C.S.A. \u00a7 7512) operated as a statute of repose, not a statute of limitations, and thus was not tolled by the discovery rule.<\/p>\n

Ms. Gidor\u2019s petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court focused on the designation of Section 7512 as a statute of repose, arguing that the statute is ambiguous and places the burden of commencing an action on a plaintiff as opposed to a defendant, raises constitutional issues, and violates legislative intent.\u00a0 In response, Mangus analogized Section 7512 to the Construction Statute of Repose and raised public policy considerations as to the intent of the General Assembly to limit claims against home inspectors.<\/p>\n

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the argument that the language was ambiguous and that a statute of repose requires a precipitating event by a defendant<\/em>.\u00a0 The court unequivocally concluded that Section 7512 is a statute of repose \u201cbecause it plainly, unambiguously, and without equitable exceptions, requires a plaintiff to commence an action within a specified time period after the occurrence of a definitely established event, regardless of when the claim accrues.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at *13.<\/p>\n

As set forth by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, \u201cunlike a statute of limitations, a statute of repose \u2018is not related to the accrual of any cause of action\u2019 because the injury need not have occurred, much less been discovered.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at *8 (citing Abrams v. Pneumo Abex Corp.<\/em>, 981 A.2d 198, 211 (Pa. 2009)). \u00a0To be sure, the date of accrual and preclusion of the discovery rule is a key distinction between a statute of limitations and statute of repose, and has clear implications for the viability of a litigant\u2019s claim.<\/p>\n

This decision provides an important tool for defending claims brought against home inspectors more than one year after delivery of the inspection report. Best practices for home inspectors include:<\/p>\n