As a general rule, contract claims are subject to a six-year statute of limitation. See OCGA § 9-3-24. The “six-year period begins to run on the date the contract is breached and the wrongful acts occur, not the date the actual damage results or is discovered.” Old Republic Nat. Ins. Co. v. Darryl J. Panella, LLC, 319 Ga. App. 274, 276, 734 S.E.2d 523 (2012).
The statute of limitation for breach of implied warranty, like tort claims and breach of sale/construction contracts, begins running on the date of substantial completion. Feinour v. Ricker Co., 255 Ga. App. 651, 653 (1), 566 S.E.2d 396 (2002); accord Wilks v. Overall Constr., Inc., 296 Ga. App. 410, 412 (1), 674 S.E.2d 320 (2009).
The Georgia Court of Appeals recently clarified that when an express warranty is in place, and a defect occurred during the express warranties time period, the statute of limitation does not begin running until the defendant was notified of the alleged defects. Southern States Chemical, Inc. v. Tampa Tank & Welding Inc., A19A0960, 2021 WL 1135479, *5-*6 (Mar. 25, 2021 Ga. Ct. App.). Importantly, even where the facts are in dispute as to whether the defect was actually present within the time period of the express warranty, if a jury could find that the defects were present at that time the statute of limitation begins at the notification period.
On a similar note, the Court reiterated that the statute of limitations is only tolled by "a showing of a separate independent actual fraud involving moral turpitude which deters a plaintiff from filing suit" when the gravamen of the underlying action is not a claim of fraud. Id. at *6-7. Specifically, the party asserting that the statute of limitation should be tolled must show:
[T]hat the defendant concealed information by an intentional act – something more than a mere failure, with fraudulent intent, to disclose such conduct [–] unless there is on the party committing such wrong a duty to make a disclosure thereof by reason of facts and circumstances, or the existence between the parties of a confidential relationship.
Hunter, Maclean, Exley & Dunn, P.C. v. Frame, 269 Ga. 844, 847 (1), 507 S.E.2d 411 (1998) (punctuation and footnote omitted).