Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Shot Clock Violation: Judge Tosses Untimely Construction Defect Claims

By John Mark Goodman on March 5, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Shot Clock Violation: Judge Tosses Untimely Construction Defect Claims

In basketball there is a shot clock. Once a team has the ball, it must shoot within 30 seconds. We’re obviously talking about college basketball since its March, but the NBA has a similar 24-second shot clock. Failure to shoot within the required time automatically gives the ball back to the other team. The law’s version of the shot clock is the statute of limitations (not to be confused with the statute of repose. Once you have a legal claim, you only have so much time to file suit. Depending on the circumstances, the clock starts when you are harmed, when you discover that you have been harmed, or when you reasonably should have discovered that you have been harmed. How much time is on the clock generally depends on which state’s law applies and the type of claim. The consequence of not filing suit in time is not just a turnover, but may be game over, as one owner in Seattle learned last week (see Fifteen Twenty-One Second Avenue Condo. Ass’n v. Viracon, LLC, et al., Case No. 23-cv-1999-BJR (W.D. Wash. Feb. 27, 2026)).  

The Fifteen Twenty-One case involves construction defect claims brought in 2023 by owners of units in a 38-floor luxury condo building in Seattle at 1521 Second Avenue. The building was completed in 2008 and features a high-performance glass curtain wall that functions as a window and exterior wall. The owner’s association alleged that the curtain wall was defective because the sealant would migrate or “leak,” reducing its insulating properties and rendering it unsightly and unsafe. The problem for the owners was that they had been on notice of these claims for seven years before they filed suit. Evidence of prior notice included, among other things, (1) a 2016 incident where a glass panel had spontaneously broken due to migrating sealant and (2) a photograph taken by building management in 2016 that documented migrating sealant issues. Under Washington law, the applicable statutes of limitation began to run when the owners discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, their claims. Here, that happened by 2016 at the latest. The applicable statutes of limitation required suit to be filed within three years on some claims and four years on others. Because the owners did not file until 2023, the proverbial shot clock had expired on all claims, and the court dismissed the case.

A copy of the court’s opinion is available here. While the opinion should spell the end of proceedings in the trial court, modern basketball fans should be accustomed to what likely happens next: an appeal (aka a coach’s challenge).

Photo of John Mark Goodman John Mark Goodman

John Mark Goodman is a construction lawyer and litigator who has tried cases throughout the United States and abroad. He regularly represents contractors, subcontractors, owners, and others involved with construction disputes, but he also handles a variety of non-construction disputes when called upon.

John Mark Goodman is a construction lawyer and litigator who has tried cases throughout the United States and abroad. He regularly represents contractors, subcontractors, owners, and others involved with construction disputes, but he also handles a variety of non-construction disputes when called upon. A degreed engineer, John Mark enjoys helping clients work through disputes that are often technical and complex.

Read more about John Mark GoodmanEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property, Real Estate & Construction
  • Blog:
    BuildSmart
  • Organization:
    Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo