No. 12-1515
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:11-cv-00047-AW)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
The
three
Chesapeake
Bay
Incorporated,
CBF,
plaintiffs
and
summary
judgment
this
Foundation,
Clark
SmithGroup,
plaintiffs)
in
to
Clark,
from
action
Incorporated,
Construction
and
appeal
diversity
the
defendants
Group,
and
LLC
SmithGroup,
(separately,
collectively,
district
courts
Weyerhaeuser
The
award
Company
the
of
and
explained
below,
we
vacate
and
remand
for
further
proceedings.
I.
A.
This litigation arose from the construction in 1999 and
2000
of
CBFs
headquarters
facility,
the
Philip
Merrill
and
Clark
green
design
oversaw
called
for
construction.
exposed
SmithGroups
structural
wood
members
the
buildings
faade.
Under
March
3,
2000
by
which
have
bonding
rough-hewn
together
strips
of
appearance,
wood.
are
The
wood
longitudinally
expected
against
to
infiltrate
rotting,
preservative
through
Parallams.
Parallams
Parallams
intended
the
to
are
fully
used
Thus,
water
outdoors.
To
pressure-treated
with
penetrate
the
is
protect
a
avenues.
wood
Its
Parallams
Weyerhaeuser
engaged
with
the
preservative
third
party
defendant
PolyClear
Permapost
2000.
Products
to
Weyerhaeuser
plaintiffs
later
verifying
shared
that
by
such
Weyerhaeuser
retention
with
level
had
the
been
reached.
Following completion of the Merrill Center in late December
2000, water began leaking through Parallams into the building.
In 2001 and 2002, the leakage was investigated by two outside
consultants
hired
by
Clark;
the
first
of
those
consultants,
released
report
on
May
24,
2002
(the
2002
water travelling
Report
could
have
been
read
to
similarly
Although the
warn
about
because
had
been
he
believed
properly
that
treated
the
with
Merrill
Centers
PolyClear
2000.
Indeed, three days before issuing the 2002 Report, he told the
plaintiffs that Parallams were a good durable product and as
good as a [railroad] tie, and that their pressure treating
5
[was] good, so they would not rot for a long period of time.
J.A.
671.
Meanwhile,
the
plaintiffs
worked
closely
with
2002
Reports.
In
response,
Weyerhaeuser
assured
the
Moreover,
at
least
three
Weyerhaeuser
the
leaking
was
stopped
in
2004
with
the
use
of
Parallams.
however,
During
Parallams
were
routine
found
to
inspection
be
in
July
deteriorating.
2009,
The
and
that
Weyerhaeuser
had
knowingly
given
false
Montgomery
County
on
December
3,
2010,
and
Weyerhaeuser
counterclaims
against
the
plaintiffs,
Weyerhaeuser
plaintiffs
claims,
limitations.
sought
Weyerhaeuser
the
and
filed
its
Following extensive
summary
invoking
and
judgment
applicable
Permapost
also
on
the
statute
made
of
separate
of
March
23,
the
district
court
granted
and
motions.
thus
The
denied
as
plaintiffs
moot
timely
all
other
noted
this
summary
appeal,
judgment
and
we
II.
We
review
judgment,
de
viewing
novo
the
district
facts
and
courts
inferences
award
of
summary
reasonably
drawn
See Core Commcns, Inc. v. Verizon Md. LLC, 744 F.3d 310, 320
(4th Cir. 2014).
the
evidence
presents
sufficient
disagreement
to
Anderson v. Liberty
III.
In awarding summary judgment to Weyerhaeuser, the district
court concluded that the plaintiffs state law claims are timebarred. 3
civil action at law shall be filed within three years from the
date it accrues unless another provision of the Code provides a
different
commenced.
period
of
time
within
which
an
action
shall
be
Maryland
accrues
when
the
claimant
in
fact
knew
or
reasonably
Proc. 5-203.
Rejecting the plaintiffs contention that their claims did
not accrue until they discovered the deteriorating Parallams in
2009, the district court ruled that the 2001 and 2002 Reports
put the plaintiffs on actual and inquiry notice of their cause
of action.
to
particularly
toll
the
since
counterparts.
limitations
the
parties
period
were
under
cosmopolitan
5-203
commercial
at
21.
The
court
thus
calculated
that
the
plaintiffs
claims accrued no later than May 2002 and expired more than
half a decade before they filed suit.
Id. at 20.
the
interior
of
the
Merrill
Center,
that
was
known
to
22 (To reiterate, just about anyone who has ever stained a deck
knows that cracked, waterlogged wood stands to rot.).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
plaintiffs, a genuine dispute exists as to whether knowledge of
the
water
person
on
infiltration
notice
problem
that
the
would
have
Parallams
put
were
reasonable
susceptible
to
protecting
it
from
rot
are
distinct
enough
that
and
there
is
conducted
receiving
genuine
dispute
reasonably
assurances
as
diligent
from
to
whether
investigation
Weyerhaeuser
that
the
by
the
80
failure
A.3d
to
269,
discover
290
a
2013)
cause
of
(Whether
action
was
plaintiffs
attributable
to
v.
Kovens,
503
A.2d
1313,
1320
(Md.
1986))).
11
n.39.
IV.
Pursuant to the foregoing, we vacate the district courts
judgment and remand for such other and further proceedings as
may be appropriate.
VACATED AND REMANDED
12