Two cases now before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court are under review and have drawn significant attention from professional engineers and the broader design community. For nearly 50 years, Pennsylvania's statute of repose has provided a vital layer of certainty by limiting how long after substantial completion a claim can be brought for design or construction defects. That 12-year limit is now being tested on two fronts, and the decisions could ripple well beyond Pennsylvania.

Unlike a statute of limitations, which typically starts when a problem is discovered, a statute of repose creates an absolute deadline that begins at substantial completion. Once that period expires, no claims can be filed, regardless of when an issue comes to light.

For design professionals, that distinction matters. It prevents decades-old projects from being reopened long after records are lost, firms have changed hands, or key individuals have retired. It's a safeguard that brings closure and predictability to long-finished work.

Two Challenges, Two Different Risks

Aloia v. Diament Building Corp. focuses on how the law defines the word "lawfully." The plaintiff argues that work that violated any building code was not "lawfully" performed and therefore should not receive the statute's protection. Lower courts rejected that reading, but the Supreme Court review could broaden liability by tying repose protections to perfect code compliance, undermining the statute's purpose of creating a clear, unconditional endpoint for claims long after a project is finished.

Clearfield County v. TranSystems Corp. raises a separate challenge. The county is attempting to pursue a claim related to a 43-year-old project, relying on the doctrine nullum tempus occurrit regi ("time does not run against the king"). The statute of repose was created to prevent exactly these kinds of decades-old claims, when records have vanished and defending the work fairly becomes nearly impossible. If the court agrees that government entities are exempt from the statute altogether, design professionals could face perpetual liability on public projects, undercutting the very finality the law was designed to guarantee.

The Response from Lawmakers and the Design Community

Recognizing the stakes, state lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 399 to restore clarity. The bill defines "lawfully" to mean that the work was performed by someone properly licensed or authorized, not that every aspect of the project was free of code issues. SB 399 also proposes shortening the repose period from 12 years to six years to provide a clearer and more predictable standard going forward.

The Pennsylvania Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE-PA) has been active in addressing both challenges, the attempt to redefine "lawfully" in Aloia and the push to exempt government entities from the statute in Clearfield County. The society filed an amicus brief with allied organizations and joined a coalition that includes the state chapters of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), and the Pennsylvania Society of Land Surveyors to coordinate a unified defense of the statute's longstanding interpretation.

NSPE Support for the Legal Work Ahead

In late August, NSPE-PA requested assistance from the NSPE Legal Fund to support the defense effort related to these cases. Given the potential impact on design professionals, the request moved forward for review, and the NSPE Board of Directors approved it in mid-September.

The upcoming decisions will shape whether Pennsylvania retains clear and predictable liability rules or whether design professionals could again face claims tied to work completed many years ago. As the cases progress, NSPE-PA and its partners remain engaged to ensure that professional engineers are effectively represented in both the courts and the legislature.