Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: This Thursday afternoon, January 22. And we're gonna get a walk through of I don't know if I would, at this point, call it a palate cleanser type bill because we're not done with the main courses somehow. I'm looking for this metaphor here. Help me out with this, Eric. Is this a palate cleanser, you think?

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: That's the last thing. No?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm going it on that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: H5-eighty nine. It's a short

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: bill, but an important picture. Sure. I can confirm that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And we're gonna have

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a walk through of

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the concept and and the language. Eric, thank you for being here.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Absolutely. Good afternoon, everybody. Eric Fitzpatrick with the office of legislative council here to do a walk through with the committee of house bill number five eighty nine. It's an act relating to a six year statute of repose for actions arising out of improvements to real property. So the subject here, statute of repose, might not be quite as familiar a term to everybody as it's closely aligned relative, the statute of limitations. So it's it's very, very similar idea. So it has to do with the idea that and I understand from Michelle that you guys are talking a little bit about statute of limitations this morning and a different type of lawsuit. Perhaps, if I remember right. But so you were talking about the idea a little bit. So to but to refresh your recollection and let you know how statutes of repose are a little bit different than statutes of limitation, A statute of limitation sets a time period within which a lawsuit may be brought. If you're if someone's injured, say, then they they have a specific period of time within which you can bring a lawsuit to try and get injuries try and get damages for that injury. Excuse me. Now and I can't remember. I don't know. I didn't look at the testimony from this morning, so you may have talked about this. But when if you think about a time limit, and and statute statutes I proposed also have to do with time limits within which lawsuits have to be brought. And if they're not brought within these time limits, they're barred. They cannot be brought. Court will say, sorry. You missed the time limit. That's the that's the hard and fast rule. Case dismissed. You can't bring your suit. And as you can sort of tell from the first word of statutes of limitation and statutes of repose, who sets these timelines? You do. They're legislatively set. So they're policy decisions about how long you think and, of course, there may be some constitutional limitations on the outside. But for the most part, they're legislative determinations. So as you may recall from the statutes of limitations idea, if you think about it in any context, however however long you have to bring your suit really depend it's really important when the clock starts. Right? What's day one? If you're gonna be counting three years, six years, ten years, whatever, well, when do I start the count? And that's where the distinction lies between statutes of limitations and statutes of repose. The limitations period, you may remember this word, that period starts counting when the cause of action, when the lawsuit accrues. That's the word, whenever the lawsuit accrues. So just as an example, and and I sent this to to Nate, so you'll have this on your on your web page when you wanna look at it. But for exam there there are dozens of statutes of limitations on the books right now for dozens of different it all depends what kind of actions. Is it medical malpractice? Is it a skiing agency? Is it something related to trespass upon land? All kinds of you we looked at this morning, boyars. I think that was criminal insult. But they can be set and are set legislatively. But there also are a couple of catchalls, you know, that set limitations could not every of all the hundreds of different kinds of actions there might be. They don't all have their own statute of limitations statute. You have these catchalls. And those happen to be, you know, catchall for civil actions and a catchall for personal injury actions, you know, broadly speaking. So what are they? Just so you know that for the for personal injury actions, the one we'll kinda talk about today. And then personal injury engages proper. So any damage to the person or property, your statute of limitations period is three years, generally speaking. It's got three year limitations period. Again, when does that three year start clock start ticking? Starts ticking when the cause of action accrues. And that one in particular that sort of refers to that in the statute, the language kind of refers to the ideas. Cause of action shall be deemed to accrue, and this is in 12 BSA five twelve, as of the date of the discovery of the injury. So generally speaking, accrual, when a cause of action accrues, that means when it sort of vests in the person. Right? Arises. It comes into existence. And when it comes into existence or vest, that's when tick, tick, tick, that clock start ticking, whether it's three years, six years, whatever it is, whatever you, as a legislature, decide it should be. So as we said, that clock that clock starts ticking when the cause of action accrues to the person. And generally speaking, for civil actions, accrues as of the time that the person who's injured or suffers the injury either discovers, for a reason we should have discovered, this injury, that they had the right to sue. Right? So in other words, it's not necessarily or isn't actually the date of the conduct that caused them to suffer this injury. It's what it could be. It could be exactly the same. I don't if you're in a car accident and you were injured right then. Well, chances are you discovered it at the exact same moment that you had the injury, but doesn't always happen though. Sometimes those two things might be different. As an example, which is hopefully relevant to age five eighty nine, an example. Let's say you hired somebody to do some work on your roof in your house. And unbeknownst to you, there was faulty work done on the roof, and there was a leak that was going on into the rafters. Didn't leak through the ceiling, so you didn't see it. But it was coming through for a long period of time. You never knew about it. And, again, hypotheticals, we're just kinda using so it's a kinda illustrate thing. So it's not being a construction expert. This might not happen exactly this way. But it's fair to assume for the sake of understanding how this statute proposed period works, think about it, show you how the difference is. So and you were walking right under the roof so under the ceiling, rather. Collapses, you get injured. Right? So when did you discover And when it hits you? But possibly, when did the cause of action accrue? That's potentially true. That's the difference between the statute of the pose and the statute of limitations. The limitations period, you're right. Cause of action occurs when you got hit because that's when you discovered it. And you didn't have any way of knowing other before that, right, through the exercise of reasonable discretion. You didn't know about the leak. You didn't know it was leaking into the above the ceiling. It was happening all that time, but you didn't. What the statute of repose says that's different is that clock doesn't start tick when it accrues. Doesn't start ticking when you discover it or you should have discovered it. That clock starts ticking. Look at the language of h five eighty nine, line 20. Well, let's it's in two different places. Start on 17. Oh, no. Sorry. I was right. Line 20. The action shall be brought within six years, see that on line 20, after substantial completion of the impotent. So the clocks doesn't start ticking when you say we're walking on that spot on the ceiling and then you got hit. If not, that's when you discovered it. In this case, the clock starts ticking six years after the completion of the improvement. In other words, the work that was done that caused the leak. So the you know, so this is six years, though. And remember what I said about the statute of limitations period. That's three years. So it will not coincide necessarily the statute of limitations period and the statute of chose period, and this is longer. So it gives you more time. You only would've had three years. Suppose it depends on the discovery of what happened. It could be shorter as well. That's the whole idea. If you would say that work had been done last year, a year ago, and a year later is when you have the injury. Well, then you have three years for men, right, to bring the bring the lawsuit. And in that case, you would've had six years from the date of the work, so the statute of proposed period is longer. See that? The way that sort of math works out. But if on the other hand, the the work had been done a year ago and the injury didn't happen until, I don't know, say, seven years after that, then even though you hadn't discovered it yet, couldn't bring the muscle because it's a six year sort of finality date, statute of repentance. So it's almost like a an end date. It is right. An end date regardless of when you discovered the injury. Discovery doesn't matter as far as when the clock starts ticking. It's when the work was done that starts the clock. And and in some ways, it's it can some ways, it can sometimes, it can give you more time than the limitations period would give you, and sometimes, it can give you less depending on the facts of when it all happened. So that's the difference of the statute of repose. It really it really turns on and it's this is just something I pulled out of Black Swad Dictionary. It's sort of trying to describe the distinction. Statute of repose bars a cause of action after a period of time running from a particular act or event even if the cause of action has not yet occurred. And it gives an example, interestingly, relative to construction work. The statute of proposed began to run upon completion of the house, even though the defect was not discovered for several years. Because it's when the discovery is made that the statute of limitations clock starts ticking, but it's when the work was done that the statute of repose clock started ticking. And that's the distinction between the two things. And what h a May proposed to do, as I was just kinda mentioning, is to create a six year statute of repose specifically for particular types of actions. Isn't in other words, it's not for all civil actions. It's for actions arising out of improvements to real property. So if you look at the language for a moment and that's the title of the proposed new section, action arising out of improvements to real property, statute of proposed. The provision is that the civil action for personal injury or property damages that arises out of a deficiency in the creation of an improvement to real property. So that's where the the fly is. Could be design, planning, contract administration, supervision, or constructively proved to be improved. Shall be brought within six years after substantial completion of the input. Doesn't matter when you discover. It's a clock that's connected to design, construction, whatever the work was that was done that substantially completed the input.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Do you know how they came up with the number here?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You know, it's I will say that there are a number of states that have the statute, specifically related to to construction and proof. They have statute of proposed. And the the number of years varies. And so some of them six, some are seven, some are 10, some are three. So I don't know how the six I think it was a proposal from the from the sponsor, the legislative sponsor, so that's a witness or the legislative sponsor might be able to answer that question. But I think it's within the range of what you see in other statutes. Put it that way.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, I have another question relative to what other states might have. So the types of civil actions, personal injury or property damages, is that fairly common? Or could there be other types of actions? Could there be fewer actions if it was only property damage, for instance? Or does this follow what other states do?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think in terms of the types of actions to which it applies, it seems fairly similar. But I think you're right, if kind of what you're saying is it could be crafted differently to apply only, say, to personal injuries or property damage. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding it. No, that's why I

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: was just wondering what other states did with respect to that. Right, right. Yep. Well,

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I thought it was some of both, but let me and I also sent an eight for posting. There's a there's a several years old, but still a list of other state statutes in this subject area. It's it's might be and there's a lot of details in how they may differ with each other. Like, some of them have exceptions. Some of them and as does this, by the way. I haven't got to got to the fraud fraudulent conduct exception. But I think it varies so much. I was finding it hard to say there's some general way that it's done. It seems that there's a lot of different ways that it's done.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: But when's the last time this bill was before us? Because you said that.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That sounds about right. Yeah. It has been introduced before.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No, I don't think we took it out.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's been on the wall? It's a while. Right. Okay, yeah, go ahead. So, yeah, I mentioned that there's an exception, which is common for statute of limitations, statutes of limitations generally. Subsection B, page two, you say this doesn't the language says this section doesn't apply if the action involves fraudulent misrepresentations or actions involving the fraudulent concealment of material facts upon which a claim is based. In other words, you can't hide the fact that there was this design flaw, this construction flaw, whatever it might be, and then take advantage of the fact that the statute of repose clock is ticking. If you do that, then then the statute of repose period doesn't apply. And the general rule, which is that a statute of limitations is told when there's fraud, you know, concealment would apply. So they still have time. Right? As long as the the fraud was being perpetrated and the flaw was being hidden, the clock is not ticking. Yeah. Go ahead, Anne.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: In that case, Eric, would the clock start with the discovery? Typically, yes. Yep.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Go ahead.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: It would work alongside a warranty concurrently?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In other words, an action for breach of warranty, you mean?

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Like Yeah. Suppose some some the work with warranty. Yep. Yep. And then something happened within the warranty, but, yeah, there might be a dispute there.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm. But Mhmm.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Until that is resolved, and then does or does it start, you know, concurrently with the warranty that you I

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: would say that in terms of when it starts, it's probably the issuance and signing of the warranty by the parties. But it's an interesting question of

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Well, the warranty the deal wouldn't be complete on should the transaction, I Right. Would

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. But a breach of contract action, which that might be, is often covered by a different statute of limitations period than a personal injury or injury to property. In this case, though, where it all sort of arose out of, say, a faulty roof or whatever it was, then I'm not sure if the underlying limitations period would be the same, whether it be because the action for breach of contract is typically six year. That's your limitations period. I'd refer to the three year one for personal injury or damage to property. So that part's an interesting question. It may not have that much of an impact because the statute of proposed would apply generally six year period. That turns upon sort of the damage to the property, the faulty sealant, the faulty roof, whatever it may be. But I think it would coincide, and we certainly start at the same time that the preaching warranty period started as well. I haven't had that I've thought about that deeply, so I might wanna Yeah. Think about it little No. It's a good question.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Barbara has a question. So, Eric, I'm wondering climate change affects this issue. For example, with us seeing one hundred year floods more frequently or different temperatures. Things that are Maybe the building is constructed for normal Vermont conditions, but normal Vermont conditions aren't what they were, even in a few year period. So, I'm wondering if it's more not just the building itself, but environmental changes that maybe the building should have been built to withstand flooding, so maybe it would have had a different drainage system or whatever. How does that kind of thing factor in when it's not just the building? I don't think it factors into this bill. I

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think what you're talking about could conceivably factor in to the standard of care involving the building in the first place. In other words, perhaps the standard of care, how a building should be constructed, could conceivably change over time with the changing circumstances of whether it's climate change or flooding or whatever it may be. The standard of care, for example, say, in the Mississippi Delta that floods all the time might be different than the one that is here in Vermont.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It's like an earthquake.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. But that doesn't have anything to do with the statute of limitations. That has to do with whether or not it would have been negligent in the first place. It's not about the clock ticking, it's

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: But part of we've failed because the flooding was so severe that these thirty year shingles, let's say, really could withstand the amount thirty years of rain came down in a week or so. So it might be more subtle even?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. As I said, I don't think it's connected to I think that question is a question of whether or not the construction was proper in the first place, given the circumstances. What's that? That would

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: be like a code issue, because I'll say

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Could be code, because that could be something that was but it could also be the standard of care in light of all the circumstances. But that doesn't have to do with when the clock starts ticking for the limitations period. Right. Yeah. Alright. Go ahead. That's really most of it other than the definition of substantial completion, which you see in subsection c, page two, as what does it mean for for substantial completion to have been done on a on a project? It means that construction sufficiently complete so that an improvement may be utilized by its owner or lawful possessor for the purposes intended. In the case of a phased project with more than one substantial completion date, the six year period of limitations, then This

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: doesn't don't understand his sentence at all.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That might be just in terms of language. Because what is actually a statute of proposals, not a statute limitations. For consistency, you might want to, regardless of the other issues that you may want to talk about, that language probably be proposed period or something like that. Six year proposed. Right? Right? For actions involving systems designed to serve the entire project shall begin at the substantial completion of each phase.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Karen, let

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: me This might be a witness question. So I understand this, but I guess my question with this is how would these dates be determined or agreed upon? Like, how is it known that the date of this section, you have now hit the what is it called? Substantial completion date for this section. Uh-huh. So you know the clock starts ticking. Right. Like, I don't would you know that? Would that need to be defined in here, or is that just a known thing?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You mean, like, sort of looking at the sort of full paragraph? In other words, what does it mean in terms of or in other words, is it more of a notice question that you're asking? Is it more like, how does the person know when the clock starts ticking? Or is it more what does substantial completion really mean?

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Yeah. Well, I think it's probably both.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Right? Right.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Say I had a project done in my house and it was this multiscap thing. Right? Yep. Something goes wrong. It's like, how do I know that the clock started ticking eight years ago for this piece, but it would be longer for this piece because and would I even know that? Would there gonna be any record of that the date is different for different sections?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: I feel like I wouldn't even know where

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: to go to figure that out. That's a good question.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And it might be one, I think, for your witnesses to start with, but also, who would know that presumably the person who did the improvements? If your question is like, hey, when did this section get done? And looking at the language here, was that designed to serve the entire that section? Was that part of the whole project? Probably a question for the personal people who did the actual construction. Maybe that would help you and your attorney if you were thinking about suing somebody because of an injury. Be able to figure out, well, so does that come under the six year period? And should we file our lawsuit now if I'm thinking about suing? Because I don't wanna miss the six year window and play it safe. Right?

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Yeah. Is there agreement on what does it say that it is able to be used for the purposes intended? Like, what if I think, like, I wanted this to be able to be used for this? And the like, well, we only so it just seems like there's a lot of vagueness in there that I would want a piece of paper that says, we both agree. This segment is now complete.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Right. Yeah. And maybe there's a way that you could and certainly, as an individual, you could ask for that with your with your contractor. But maybe there's language that you could add along the lines of, you know, the parties may agree something like, you know, what substantial completion includes for purposes of the project and then you know what I mean? So they are sort of letting people know that they can try and work that out with their contractors, and that way they'd have some sort of difficulty. Perfect.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: It's helpful just to know that you agree that there's room that it could be

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: could clear things up. Yes. And it may be sometimes. Sometimes the person who ends up clearing these things up is the judge. Right? Because then it's courts a lot of times that when there's disagreements about whether a statute of limitations has run or not, those can end up in court. And it becomes up to the judge to decide, well, alright. I'm looking at the facts here, and here's when the clock started, and the six year period is up, or the three year period is up, whatever it may be. Sometimes the result of that is that the court says you're still within the period. You can still file your lawsuit. But other times, the result is the clock has already expired and You should realize it. Right. Yeah, that does happen.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, I

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: was thinking we did the water treatment facility in Brattleboro a couple of years ago, and in the contract, there were set completion dates for So maybe you could use But my question, two things. One, I honestly have read this last line four times, and I'm struggling to understand. So in case of a base project with more than one substantial completion date, the six year period of repose involving systems designed to serve the entire project shall begin at the substantial completion of each phase. So does that mean that you're going to get a new six year start at each phase completion if it's something that they're working on that benefits the whole project.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's the way I was reading it. Okay. Yeah. Okay. But that was my reading. I Right. Yes. So you've got you've got three different phases of of different elements that benefit the entire project, then substantial completion of phase A, six year clock starts. Substantial completion of phase B, six year clock starts then. And if they're at different times, then you're going to have different endpoints for those two phases.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Okay. And then my only other question was, I was thinking about the Bridge Exit 9 On 91 was under construction for I don't even know how many years, and you drove on one lane.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I remember that, yep.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah. No kidding. I think six years or so, like a really long time.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: How does that work with

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: being utilized for the purpose intended? So we are driving over it. It is being used.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But you're probably about one lane, it means it hasn't been stitched substantially. Can't believe it.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: It doesn't even pass.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I'm just I'm just it's kind of a funny thing, but it did come to mind when I was looking at this. And my only other question is, in the other states, I guess most states have a statute of propose.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: For this type of thing? Yeah. Yeah, seems that.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: In any of them that you're looking at, any of them have a carve out for massive projects, an amount of damage? I'm thinking about, if we're using the bridge example, a catastrophic bridge collapse that happens outside of the six year period of proposed, and it does actually come to light that it was from negligence in the construction. Is there any carve out?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I honestly didn't look at every single one of the other Did you run for certain? Not right. But another interesting question, I'd to have you do that. So I don't know whether that I didn't nothing left out at me, but I wasn't looking for that either.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah. And to me, it's not really something that

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I've got. Right. I don't know. Might be. I don't know. I'll I'll check. Cool. Alright. That was Yeah. Ken, can I try to understand your bridge?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I don't know.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It was just saying at the beginning, what what about for how long you you were what was your the point you were trying to make?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: There. So the substantial completion in section c of this says a section it's considered substantially complete, meaning we are the clock is starting to run on the proposed period if it's substantially complete. And it is defined as substantially complete if the improvement may be utilized by its owner or lawful processor for the purpose intended. And so in this really long bridge project on '91, I drove over it all the time, like all the time, and it was really annoying. Why did you go around? Well, I could. I I meant more that there was construction being done on it the whole time. Oh, I get it. Okay.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's a pretty big pass, but go ahead. So

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: it was, I think, maybe considered substantially complete because it was being utilized for one lane. I don't know. Maybe there is some way that it's not substantially complete because the one lane's open. But I was just curious, how does that work with when this clock starts ticking because it's being utilized for its purpose? Yeah, I understand. Okay. Thanks.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: And if I may, I feel like it connects back to my question of there needs to be agreement or a clear line of, like, we know we've met this this Tools. Substantial completion.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah. And I'm sure we'll we'll get Yes. Or

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: yeah. It is true that with statute of limitations as well, though, that, you know, when you talk about, say, there isn't a discovery rule here within this, so it's it's not it's the same language. But the idea that, you know, when a reasonable person exercising, you know, reasonable judgment should have discovered something, it's not something you're gonna be able to legislate with with clarity from here that will cover every individual circumstances forever. So I guess the only point I'm making is that, yes, obviously, you want the language to be as tight and cover as many things as you can, but it probably won't be able to anticipate every single way that things might unfold. So those things may end up being litigated in court, potentially.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Well, we just let it sit.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All are your policy options.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Some witnesses as far as the lead, and then some witnesses who will probably argue there is

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: no need. Then And we can do Scott.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I'm just putting another option. Oh, yes, the other option is, yep, that's But no, we'll hear some witnesses, because we have three tomorrow morning. You have become very open to this conversation. Any other questions for Eric?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Sure. Happy to help. I was all ready for one question that didn't have been Oh, oh, oh, oh, Karen,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the question to yourself.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Maybe steal

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: that because

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can't. Counsel, do we have any other statutes of reposing? I was gonna ask that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: You're right. I thought I was about to answer

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that. The answer is, as far as I can tell, not many, but there are some. And I like, my my search of the statutes just for the word repose only came up with one, but it doesn't always necessarily call the statute reposes. I think it it really has more to do how it works. You know, it's not really based on the discovery. It's more about start at some period of time, and then the clock starts ticking. So the one I found that is I think it's a period of repose happens to be about actions brought in the context of unclaimed property by the administrator of unclaimed property. There's a statute of repose for how much time the administrator has to bring an action to enforce the unclaimed property check statutes. Interesting. And another one, I believe it's not a 100% clear, but I think it is a statute of reposes in within the medical malpractice statute. And that provides that that and it's 12 VSA five twenty one. Another thing that I sent to you that you will find posted on your links there, it's this is posted. It's really this entirety of the chapter entitled 12, chapter 23. It has all the statute of limitations. And just so you can look and see, wow. There's individual statute of limitations for all these different kinds of actions. But remember I said, there's general ones for civil and actions generally as well. But there is one for medical malpractice specific, and that one is within that chapter. And that language says that the if it's an if it's an injury that you're bringing to recover damages for injuries to the person, so it's personal injury, arising out of any medical or surgical treatment or operation shall be brought within three years of the date of the incident or two years from the date sorry, from the date the injury is or reasonably should have been discovered. Right? So there's a discovery rule. That's more of the limitations period kind of thing within two years from from the date that you could have discovered it. So remember, that brings up I happen to know from talking to Michelle, one of the exempt she mentioned an example this morning. That's like and in fact, it's even specifically referenced to the statute of studies. For a period of time, the discovery of a foreign object in your body after surgery happens to be a whole class of types of types That's where the hypothesis Yes, exactly. That's not making anything up. That's like a whole genre.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's an extension.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Well, yes. So there's something specific about that in there.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So you have to discover within three years whether they collect the love inside? With respect to the discovery,

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that you get a it's told Anything. Until you discover. Yeah. So you get two years aft from the date you discover. So, no, you're not it doesn't count against you, not to

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: a family. Yeah. Isn't it more statute of limitations than repose? Yes. I haven't gotten to

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the repose thing. Oh, I'm sorry. Alright. Well, I thought the the rest of I thought I could identify. Yes. Right. But that is more of a sagittal limitation thing because in that case, you have until the discovery before the clock starts ticking. But the rest of that sentence, whichever occurs later, but then it says, but not later in seven years from the date of the incident. Okay. So that's a repose period. That's saying, hey. In that case, I said, now I haven't looked at any of the cases to it because it alright. If the cards tried to carve anything out of that, I don't really know. But the way it's written is definitely a repose. Seven years, again, not based on discovery at all from the date of the incident that that clock starts ticking. You're talking about carving up the instrument that's left with somebody? Nope. That one is an exception. I that one you get words. Does that one Right. Right. Does that have to does

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: that discovery one still have

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to happen within a seven, though? I'd say no. Oh, interesting. Because that's a separate sentence. I would read that as an exception to that. Oh, wow. But perhaps there's been a case of that. It's Kenneth,

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: you know, we can have a little humor

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: in this room once in

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: a while, but remember years ago, the

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Seinfeld episode where Kramer was up top,

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and he was He was a it was a milk dud or something like It was

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: junior men.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yes. That's

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: alright. Right? It was.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And he goes in the whoops.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: The junior men's. We

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: could flip one

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: of those off that bridge we're talking.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Alright. Well, we're find that I I've note that. I've breaking all that stuff up.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We'll put Nate on finding that video for us to watch. Oh, Tomorrow morning, we have three witnesses on this bill right after the floor. We'll see how long the floor lasts and whether we can get to them all. And then we do have some testimony in the afternoon. We're wrapping up, at least for this stage, the victim's rights in forensic system. And then we're gonna have Matt Valerio win on this bill. No, not this bill. On 06/26 as well as the victim's bill. So be prepared to come back for, well, I have it scheduled to end at three. And we'll hopefully