Opinion ID: 2336258
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claim 1Entitlement to damages for negligent repairs.

Text: Although the majority of Burgess' breach of contract claims are premised upon the alleged damage to his original ownership rights as caused by the Board's subsequent changes to the bylaws and house rules, Burgess also contends that he is entitled to reimbursement of expenses paid to repair the damages to his apartment caused by negligent Hampshire Gardens workers. In his original complaint, Burgess sought these damages both under a negligence cause of action as well as under a breach of contract claim. Although the trial court originally ruled that his negligence claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations for such claims, D.C.Code Ann. § 12-301(3) (1981), which Burgess did not appeal, he now reasserts his entitlement to damages for the negligent repair under the breach of contract claim, relying on Article 4 of the proprietary lease which provides that Hampshire Gardens shall be liable for losses or damages caused to a lessee's unit if the damage shall have been caused by negligence on the part of the lessor. [5] We reject appellant's argument because we conclude that his breach of contract claim for damages caused by negligent repair is completely dependent upon and intertwined with his negligence claim for the same injury. Morton v. Nat'l Med. Enter., Inc., 725 A.2d 462, 471 (D.C.1999). It is well settled that in a determination of the applicable statute of limitations, the plaintiff's characterization of the claim is not controlling, Saunders v. Nemati, 580 A.2d 660, 661 (D.C.1990), and we must look beyond the conclusory terms of the pleadings to the substantive elements of any alleged causes of action. McCracken v. Walls-Kaufman, 717 A.2d 346, 350 (D.C.1998). In other words, the fact that Burgess now seeks damages for Hampshire Gardens' faulty repair of his premises under a breach of contract theory is not by itself dispositive of the statute of limitations issue. While Article 4 of the proprietary lease does provide that Hampshire Gardens shall be liable for losses or damages caused to the lessee's unit if the damage shall have been caused by negligence on the part of the lessor, the provision does not impose a new duty on the part of Hampshire Gardens as it already had a common-law obligation to perform any repairs it might make on the property in a non-negligent manner. [6] Cf. Etheredge v. District of Columbia, 635 A.2d 908, 918 (D.C.1993) (same course of conduct may support both a claim of assault and battery and a negligence claim as long as the defendant, while engaging in the conduct that included the intentional tort, was also in breach of another recognized duty owed to the plaintiff). See also Walls-Kaufman, 717 A.2d at 351 (same). Thus, although Burgess' claim also may be presented as a breach of contract cause of action, it is nevertheless Hampshire Gardens' underlying negligence which is the basis for the alleged breach of contract. See id. at 350. Accordingly, Burgess may not circumvent the three-year statute of limitations for a negligence action by seeking damages for the identical injury under a breach of contract claim. See Saunders, 580 A.2d at 661 (The action thus pleaded cannot ... be removed from its place in the law of torts by calling what occurred also [a breach of contract].) (quoting Morfessis v. Baum, 108 U.S.App. D.C. 303, 305, 281 F.2d 938, 940 (1960)).