Revise the applicability of the statute of repose for construction deficiencies.
Summary
HB1091 revises how the statute of repose in chapter 15-2A applies to construction-deficiency claims. The bill adds a new section stating that the time limits in that chapter apply to lawsuits brought by the state, a governmental entity, or on behalf of the state or a governmental entity in the same manner as they apply to private parties, unless another law specifically provides otherwise.
In practical terms, the bill is aimed at making clear that government plaintiffs do not receive a different limitations period for construction-defect or construction-deficiency actions under this chapter. It would place public entities on the same footing as private litigants for purposes of the repose period, unless a separate statute creates an exception.
Impact
The bill would affect South Dakota’s chapter 15-2A by expressly extending its limitations and repose rules to actions brought by or for governmental entities, not just private parties. This could limit the ability of the state or local governments to pursue construction-deficiency claims after the repose period expires, while also reducing uncertainty about whether public entities are subject to the same deadlines as private claimants. The measure is procedural in nature but could materially affect construction litigation involving public projects, contractors, design professionals, and governmental owners.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests the bill had some support but also notable opposition, with a 10-3 vote to defer it to the 41st legislative day. Because there are no committee transcripts provided, there is little direct evidence of the arguments made in discussion. The deferment indicates the bill was not moving forward smoothly and may have faced reservations about its effect on governmental claims or construction litigation timing.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be whether governmental entities should be treated exactly like private parties under the construction-deficiency statute of repose. Supporters likely view the bill as a clarification that promotes uniform deadlines and predictability, while opponents may be concerned that it could shorten or bar public entities’ ability to recover for construction defects on public projects. The 10-3 deferment vote suggests disagreement over the policy choice and its consequences for state and local government litigation rights.