### FILED 

# COURT.OFAPPEALS DIVIS10bj II u 

### JUL 14 

### AM 9: ca 

# STATE ;OFVMSHINGTON 8Y_._



### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II VALERIE ANDERSON and STEVEN B. ANDERSON, husband and wife and the marital community thereof, Appellants,
V. MASON COUNTY; BARBARA BRADSHAW and JOHN DOE BRADSHAW, husband and wife and the marital community thereof,owners ofAllyn View Mobile Home Park, No. 46549 - 3 -II

UNPUBLISHED OPINION
WORSWICK, J. — Valerie Anderson suffered injuries in 2011 when she fell into a sinkhole 

### she contends was caused by Mason County's negligent decommissioning ofa septic tank in 2000

or 2001. 

### Anderson appeals the superior court's summaryjudgment dismissal ofher claim 

### against Mason County. Anderson argues thatthe superior court erred in applying the construction statute ofrepose, RCW 4. 16.310, because ( 1) the discovery rule and notthe statute ofrepose applies to her claim, and (2) the statute ofrepose had not yet run because the county performed repair work in 2010. We affirm.No. 45407 - 6 -II

FACTS 

### In 1999 or 2000, Mason County required the Allyn View Mobile Home Park (Allyn View) to convert their sewage disposal from a septic tank system to the county' s sewer system.. 

### In 2000 or 2001, Mason County decommissioned the septic tanks.

In 2010, a sinkhole formed at Allyn View. Allyn View' s owner and manager reported 

### the sinkhole to the county, alleging thatthe sinkhole formed because the septic tankwas not properly decommissioned. Clerk' s Papers ( CP) at 28. 

### The countyfilled this hole with gravel in February of2010. 

### In February of2011, Valerie Anderson was walking at Allyn View in a different location than the 2010 sinkhole, when anew sinkhole opened up beneath her. She fell into the sinkhole, 

### injuring her arm.

Anderson sued the county for her injuries.' 

### The county moved for summaryjudgment, 

### arguing thatthe six-year construction statute ofrepose barred Anderson' s recovery for injuries stemming from the removal ofthe septic tanks in 2000 or2001 because the cause ofaction did
not accrue until 2011. 

### The superior court granted the county's motion. Anderson appeals. . ANALYSIS 

### Anderson argues that the superior court erred by ordering summaryjudgment dismissal 

### because the discovery rule barred application ofthe statute ofrepose until Anderson' s injury, or

The record on appeal does not contain Anderson' s complaint. It appears she sued Mason 

### County for negligence. 2 RCW 4. 16.310. NNo. 45407 - 6 -II 

### alternatively because the statute ofrepose has not expired by virtue ofthe county's 2010 repair work on a sinkhole. We disagree. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

### We review atrial court's order granting summaryjudgment de novo, engaging in the 

### same inquiry as the trial court. Clark County Fire Dist.No. S v. Bullivant Houser Bailey P.C., 180 Wn. App. 689, 698, 324 P. 3d 743, review denied, 181 Wn.2d 1008 ( 2014). We resolve all 

### factual disputes and reasonable inferences in favor ofthe nonmoving party. Clark County Fire, 180 Wn.App. at 698. 

### Summaryjudgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled tojudgment as a matter oflaw. Clark County Fire, 180 Wn.App. at 698. 

### When construing a statute, we determine legislative intent by giving effect to the plain language of a statute when possible. Parkridge 4ssocs., Ltd v. Ledcor Indus., Inc., 

### 113 Wn.App. 592, 602, 54 P.3d 225 (2002). II. CONSTRUCTION STATUTE OF REPOSE The construction statute of repose provides: All claims or causes of action as set forth in RCW 4. 16. 300 shall accrue, and the applicable statute of limitation shall begin to run only during the period within six years after substantial completion of construction, or during the period within six years after the termination ofthe services enumerated in RCW 4. 16.300, whichever is later. RCW 4. 16.310. RCW 4. 16.300 provides that the statute of repose " shall apply to all claims or 

### causes ofaction ofany kind against any person, arising from such person having constructed,
altered or repaired any improvement upon real property."No. 45407 - 6 -II

Statutes of repose differ from statutes of limitation because "` [ a] statute of limitation bars plaintifffrom 

### bringing an already accrued claim after a specific period of time,"' whereas a 

### ccstatute ofrepose terminates a right ofaction after a specified time, even ifthe injury has not yet
occurred."' 1000 Virginia Ltd. P' ship v. Vertecs 

### Corp., 158 Wn.2d 566, 574-75, 146 P. 3d 423 2006) ( quoting Rice v. Dow Chem. Co., 124 Wn.2d 205, 211- 12, 875 P. 2d 1213 ( 1994)); see also Wash. State Major League Baseball Stadium Pub. Facilities Dist.v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Constr. Co., 176 Wn.2d 502, 511, 296 P. 3d 821 ( 2013). Thus, we perform a two

### step analysis for a cause ofaction arising from construction, alteration, or repair ofan 

### improvement to real property: first,the cause ofaction must accrue within sixyears ofeither substantial completion or termination of services and, second, the claim must be filed within the applicable statute oflimitations once the cause of action has accrued. 1000 Virginia Ltd.P'ship; 158 Wn.2d at 575.

III. DISCOVERY RULE DOES NOT RESCUE ANDERSON' S CLAIM 

### Anderson first argues thatthe discovery rule and not the statute ofrepose applies because
she could not have discovered the harm resulting from the septic tank removal until 2011. We 

### disagree, because the discovery,, rule does not apply to Anderson' s claim. Our Supreme Court in Gevaart v. Metco Construction, Inc., 111 Wn.2d 499, 502, 760 

### P.2d 348 ( 1988) has already rejected the proposition that the discovery rule overcomes the statute ofrepose. The Gevaart court specifically held thatthe statute ofrepose limits the discovery rule and absolutely bars claims that have not accrued within six years. Gevaart, 111 Wn.2d at 502. Anderson' s argument fails.

11No. 45407 - 6 -II

IV. STATUTE OF REPOSE BARS ANDERSON' S CLAIM Anderson next argues that her claim is not barred because the statute ofrepose began to 

### run in 2010 when the county filled a sinkhole. We disagree. Anderson argues that the 2010 sinkhole repair began a new statute ofrepose because it 

### was a " repair" underthe meaning ofRCW 4. 16.300, and " Mason County was aware thatthe two holes they were filling were a part of a larger and connected septic tank field." Br. ofAppellant 

### at 12. ButAnderson cites no authority forthe ideathat Mason County' s subjective knowledge of other decommissioned septic tanks in the area means that the 2010 work triggered a statute of repose relevant to the 2011 sinkhole. We reject this interpretation ofthe statute ofrepose. 

### Furthermore, Anderson does not argue, nor are there any facts in the record to suggest, 

### thatthe 2010 repairwork bore any causal relationship to the formation ofthe 2011 sinkhole. Anderson' s cause ofaction arises from the decommissioning ofthe septic tanks in 2000 or 2001, 

### not fromthefilling ofthe sinkhole in 2010. It is undisputed thatAnderson fell in aholethat formed in 2011 in a different location than the 2010 repair. Anderson acknowledges that the improperly filled septic tanks[,]" 

### notthe filling ofthe sinkhole in 2010, gave rise to her claim. Br. ofAppellant at 9. Thus, the 2010 - work did not trigger a statute of repose relevant to Anderson' s claim. 

### Here, it is uncontested that the county substantially completed its work removing the septic tanks in 2000 or 2001. 

### Thus, any claim arising from this project had to accrue in 2007 at the latest. And the parties agree that the cause of action did not accrue until 2011 when Anderson fell into the sinkhole. Thus, her claim is barred under the statute of repose.No. 45407 - 6 -II
ENiiiONW-

1.i 

### A majority ofthe panel having determined thatthis opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2. 06. 040, it is so ordered.
Worswick, J. We concur:
J , hanson, C.J.

Melnick, J

2