Opinion ID: 1379404
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: The appellant, Gateway Communications, Inc., (hereinafter Gateway or appellant) owns and operates WOWK-TV, a commercial television broadcast station. In 1983, the appellant contracted with John R. Hess, Inc. (hereinafter Hess), a Pennsylvania corporation, for the construction of a new broadcast facility in Huntington, West Virginia. The facility was constructed in accordance with plans prepared by Stieglitz, Stieglitz, Tries, P.C., Architects/Planners (hereinafter Stieglitz). Hess executed a performance bond with the appellee, Insurance Company of North America (hereinafter INA or appellee), a Pennsylvania corporation, whereby INA became surety for Hess's completion of the contract. The performance bond provides that [a]ny suit under this bond must be instituted before the expiration of two (2) years from the date on which final payment under the Contract falls due. The construction of the new broadcast facility was completed in 1985, and Hess was paid all amounts owed to it by the appellant. On April 10, 1990, the appellant filed an action in the Circuit Court of Cabell County against Hess, Stieglitz, and INA, in which it alleged damage to the facility as a result of water leakage which was discovered in 1989. According to the appellant, the water leakage was caused by Hess's failure to construct underground drainage facilities in accordance with the contract. In its complaint, the appellant claimed breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, and negligence against Hess, and breach of contract against Stieglitz. In addition, the appellant sought a declaratory judgement as to the duties owed to it by INA, as surety, under the performance bond. [1] Stieglitz eventually reached a settlement with the appellant and was dismissed from the action. In October 1991, during the pendency of the proceedings, Hess filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy which automatically stayed the appellant's action against it. [2] In March 1997, INA moved to dismiss the appellant's action on the ground that it was untimely under the express provisions of the performance bond. The circuit court agreed and by order of October 18, 1999 dismissed the appellant's complaint. The appellant challenges this dismissal.