Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds That 12-Year Statute of Repose Applies to Municipalities Regardless of Nullus Tempus Doctrine.

​In a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the doctrine of nullum tempus occurrit regi does not prevent design professionals and contractors from obtaining a dismissal due to a governmental entity’s failure to file suit within Pennsylvania’s repose period.

​Pennsylvania has a statute of repose (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5536), which protects those “lawfully performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision or observation of construction, or construction of any improvement to real property.”  The statute protects architects, engineers, and contractors from lawsuits filed more than 12 years after “completion of construction of such improvement.”   With few exceptions, this repose period broadly applies to “any” deficiency in such services.  This repose period even applies to lawsuits for contribution or indemnification related to personal or property injuries.

Clearfield County v. Transystems Corporation concerned a jail that had been completed back in 1981.  In 2021, about 40 years after the jail’s completion, Clearfield County learned of a serious defect involving the jail’s roof that required nearly $4 million to repair.  In 2023, the County sued the original architect, general contractor, and masonry contractor. Citing the legal doctrine nullum tempus occurrit regi, Clearfield County argued that the statue of repose does not apply.

Nullum tempus occurrit regi (nullum tempus) is an ancient common law doctrine, translated as “no time runs against the king.”  When applicable, this doctrine allows government agencies to circumvent statutes of limitation; in other words, this doctrine could result in no statute of limitations being applicable to government agencies.  The public policy is to help preserve public rights and property from injury and loss.  Otherwise, the public may suffer because, for example, the government agency is too busy with other public matters and may inadvertently miss a deadline. Here, Clearfield County argued that, because of the doctrine, the applicable statute of repose should not preclude the County’s claim.  

In its April 30, 2026 decision Clearfield County v. Transystems Corporation, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected Clearfield County’s argument.  

The Supreme Court cited the Statute of Repose’s purpose.  For example, the Statute of Repose was passed through efforts of the American Institute of Architects, National Society of Professional Engineers, and the Association of General Contractors of America, in order to protect certain professionals from lawsuits that post-date their relevant services.  By enacting such statutes, the legislature had determined that it is in the public interest that certain potential defendants be free from liability after a specified period; more specifically, the Statute of Repose’s purpose is to protect the construction industry from the financial consequences of indeterminate liability. The Statute of Repose was unambiguously drafted in furtherance of this purpose.  

The Supreme Court also differentiated statutes of repose from statutes of limitation.  In some cases, the nullus tempus doctrine had applied to statutes of limitation, but not to statutes of repose.  As an example of a key distinction, equitable principles often apply toward tolling a statute of limitations; in contrast, statutes of repose generally are not subject to equitable tolling.  The Supreme Court held that this specific Statute of Repose was not subject to equitable defenses such as estoppel or tolling.  

Accordingly, as a matter of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Statute of Repose’s strict 12-year cut-off does indeed apply to municipalities, just as it would to a private party. For design professionals and contractors, the Clearfield County decision should provide some comfort when assessing the risks of accepting a municipal project.