OMSTEAD v. BPG INSPECTION, LLC

Albert Omstead hired BPG Inspection to inspect a home before he and his wife Jessique bought it. The inspection contract said no lawsuit against BPG could be filed more than one year after the inspection, even for claims not yet discovered. The inspection did not flag problems with a retaining wall, but more than a year after the inspection, that wall collapsed on Mr. Omstead and killed him. His wife sued BPG for wrongful death, negligence, fraud, and other claims. A trial court said the one-year limit was unenforceable, but the Court of Appeals of Georgia disagreed and said BPG should win. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed with the Court of Appeals. It held that the one-year limitation applies to wrongful death and other tort claims, is not the kind of liability release that would be barred for gross negligence, does not violate laws against forcing one party to indemnify another, and is not so contrary to public policy that courts should refuse to enforce it.

A contractual clause requiring lawsuits against a home inspection company to be filed within one year of the inspection is enforceable, applies to tort and wrongful death claims as written, is not an exculpatory or indemnity clause barred by statute, and is not void as against public policy.

Home inspection companies in Georgia can continue using one-year deadlines in their contracts, even if that means a homeowner's family loses the ability to sue over a defect that causes death or injury discovered after that year has passed.

Affirmed

1. The court read the contract's plain language, which said the one-year limit applied to any legal action 'sounding in tort... contract, arbitration or otherwise,' and concluded it covered the wrongful death claims because those claims sound in both tort and contract.
2. The court explained that an 'exculpatory clause,' meaning a provision that fully releases a party from liability for wrongdoing, cannot excuse gross negligence, but found the one-year limit was not exculpatory because it still allowed lawsuits against BPG within the first year rather than releasing BPG from liability entirely.
3. The court noted Georgia has long allowed parties to shorten by contract the time period for filing a lawsuit, even below what a statute would normally allow, and found no past Georgia case forbidding a deadline that runs from an event (the inspection) rather than from when the harm is discovered.
4. The court distinguished this case from prior rulings striking down 'statutes of repose' (laws cutting off claims after a fixed period) as unconstitutional, explaining those cases turned on equal protection problems in state laws, not on private contract terms like this one.
5. The court rejected the argument that Georgia's professional-duty precedent for dentists applied, because unlike dentists, home inspectors are not licensed professionals subject to a legislatively set minimum standard of care under Georgia law.
6. The court held the clause was not a barred indemnification or 'hold harmless' provision under O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b), because it did not force Omstead to reimburse BPG or absolve BPG of responsibility, it simply set a filing deadline while still allowing suit within the first year.

• home inspection liability
• one-year contract deadline
• wrongful death lawsuit
• retaining wall collapse
• public policy and contracts