Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 4591/1997 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses claim for damages against developer for building defect after ten-year limitation period expired.

Case Number KKO 4591/1997
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the apartment owners' claim for damages against the developer regarding a building defect discovered over ten years after completion. The developer argued the claim was time-barred under the general limitation period, while the owners contended the defect was latent and the limitation period had not yet expired. The court ruled that the general limitation period had elapsed before the owners could establish the defect, thereby barring their right to compensation.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Vanh 1 §; The general limitation period for claiming damages for latent building defects expires ten years after the completion of the building, barring claims if the defect is not discovered within that timeframe.

Keywords

AI generated
building defect liability limitation period expiration latent defect discovery apartment ownership rights developer compensation claim

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Vanh 1 §
AI generated
kko-precedent_2003_131
Supreme Court rules condominium owner liability for renovation damages follows contract law principles, not tort statute of limitations.
kko-precedent_1987_20
Supreme Court dismisses buyer's claim for hidden defect damages where seller could not reasonably detect the nail puncture.
admin_1993_water-superior__231
Administrative court dismisses claim for specific performance and allows partial compensation for structural damage caused by water level rise.
kko-precedent_2016_98
Supreme Court dismisses claim for damage caused by 1992 parking lot work as statute of limitations expired in 2002.
admin_2025_eastern-finland__2823
Administrative court dismissed asylum claim where applicant failed to prove well-founded fear of persecution in Finland.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

A oli rakennuttanut rakennusliike B:llä perustamalleen asunto-osakeyhtiö C:lle vuonna 1980 valmistuneen rivitalon. Vuonna 1993 rakennuksen yhden seinän tiiliverhous oli rakennusvirheen vuoksi sortunut noin 20 metrin matkalta. Kysymys siitä, oliko C:n A:han kohdistama vahingonkorvausvaatimus vanhentunut, kun korvausta vaadittaessa oli kulunut yli kymmenen vuotta rakennuksen vastaanottotarkastuksesta ja siitä, kun asunto-osakeyhtiö oli luovutettu asunnonostajien hallintoon.

VanhA 1 §