Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/401/401mass645.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 17:52:01+00:00

Document:
JAMES CONLEY & another [Note 1] vs. SCOTT PRODUCTS, INC.
CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Waltham Division of the District Court Department on February 8, 1984.
On removal to the Superior Court Department the case was heard by Hiller B. Zobel, J., on a motion for summary judgment.
Alfred E. Nugent for the plaintiffs.
Timothy P. Wickstrom for the defendant.
O'CONNOR, J. This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment for the defendant based on the statute of repose contained in G. L. c. 260, Section 2B, as amended by St. 1973, c. 777, Section 2. We transferred the case from the Appeals Court on our own motion. We affirm the judgment.
(UFFI) in the plaintiffs' home more than six years before February, 1984. The defendant moved for summary judgment grounded on both the three-year limitation of actions provision and the six-year repose provision of G. L. c. 260, Section 2B. A judge of the Superior Court denied the motion, but thereafter, on reconsideration, allowed it, and judgment was entered for the defendant, thus generating this appeal.
Mary Conley's answers to interrogatories establish that the defendant installed UFFI in the plaintiffs' home on November 28, 1977. According to Mary Conley's answer to an interrogatory, "[c]hemicals and insulation (catalyst foaming agent combined with compressed air and urea formaldehyde resin) were mixed inside a commercial truck (Mobil trailer type vehicle) then pumped through hoses into the exterior walls of [the] house in a liquid form."
The second clause of Section 2B is a repose provision imposing an absolute limit on the time within which actions to which it refers may be brought, irrespective of when the plaintiff was injured or discovered the wrong. Klein v. Catalano, 386 Mass. 701 , 702 (1982). Since more than six years elapsed between the installation of the insulation and the commencement of this action, the only arguable question is whether the repose provision applies to this case.
The repose provision applies to this case if the installation of insulation in a building constitutes "construction . . . of an improvement to real property" within the meaning of Section 2B. We conclude that it does. "Section 2B was intended . . . to apply . . . to parties who render particularized services for the design and construction of particular improvements to particular pieces of real property." Dighton v. Federal Pac. Elec. Co., 399 Mass. 687 , 696 (1987). Although the word "improvement" is not defined in the statute, this court and the Appeals Court have previously found the definition found in Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 1138 (1961) helpful: "a permanent addition to or betterment of real property that enhances its capital value and that involves the expenditure of labor or money and is designed to make the property more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs." See Milligan v. Tibbetts Eng'g Corp., 391 Mass. 364 , 368 (1984); Raffel v. Perley, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 242 , 245 (1982). We are satisfied that this tort action arises out of an alleged deficiency or neglect in the construction of an improvement to real property. We see no significant distinction, and the plaintiffs suggest none, between this case and Salinsky v. Perma-Home Corp., 15 Mass. App. Ct. 193 , 198-199 (1983), a case in which the Appeals Court held that the installation of aluminum siding was within the statute.
[Note 2] General Laws c. 260, Section 2B, was amended by St. 1984, c. 484, Section 53, effective April 7, 1985. The statute as amended does not apply to this case. See City Council of Waltham v. Vinciullo, 364 Mass. 624 , 628 (1974). In any event, the resolution of this case would not have been different if the statute, as amended, applied.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.