Opinion ID: 2218327
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: rationale/decision

Text: We note that there was some interplay of sorts between the parties pending this litigation. Briefly stated, it is this: Plaintiff/Appellant's president, Richard W. Viehweg, filed an affidavit resisting the motion to dismiss. He asserts that repairs on the roof continued for a period through 1979. According to him, the contractor acquiesced in these efforts. Viehweg's affidavit was vague in detail, but one fact may be gleaned of import: The Sub-contractor apparently stopped repairs by the end of 1979. Viehweg then asserts that failure of the roof repair effort was not discovered until 1987 and 1988. If, indeed, this is true, the roof apparently leaked for over 10 years before the repair process was proven a failure. This conclusion was reached when some wall damage developed. Therefore, at least seven or eight years after Sub-contractor made its last repairs, by Plaintiff's own account, damage to the walls of the building occurred. To tolerate a leaking roof for that long a time (Plaintiff claimed Sub-contractor was aware of continuing problems in 1981, yet made no assertion that any repairs were made after 1979), without asserting one's rights and to act only after water apparently damaged walls, is manifestly unreasonable. Dismissal of this action was proper. Finding no abuse of discretion, the trial court is affirmed. MORGAN and MILLER, JJ., concur. SABERS, J., specially concurring. WUEST, C.J., deeming himself disqualified, did not participate in this opinion.