BlogLine

Gidor v. Magnus: Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarifies statute of repose for home inspections

11/14/25

By: Nicholas S. Franos

In Gidor v. Magnus, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed whether 68 Pa. C.S. § 7512 (“Section 7512”) of the Pennsylvania Home Inspection Law constitutes a statute of repose or a statute of limitations. The Court held that the plain language of the statute, combined with contextual analysis, establishes that Section 7512 is a statute of repose, substantially limiting the liability window for home inspectors.

Background

In May 2017, Gidor entered into an agreement to purchase a home. Before completing the purchase, Gidor contracted with Magnus to perform a home inspection. On June 6, 2017, Magnus delivered his inspection report, which did not disclose any issues with the home’s foundation. Relying on this report, Gidor purchased the property.

During the winter of 2018-2019, structural damage occurred due to the absence of a foundation beneath part of the home. Gidor filed a complaint against Magnus on August 21, 2019. Magnus responded by asserting that Gidor’s claims were time-barred under Section 7512, arguing that the statute operates as a statute of repose. Gidor countered that Section 7512 was a statute of limitations subject to equitable tolling under the discovery rule.

The Court’s Analysis

Section 7512 states:

“An action to recover damages arising from a home inspection report must be commenced within one year after the date the report is delivered.”

Although the text appears straightforward, ambiguity arose regarding its characterization. To resolve this, the Court examined analogous statutes and case law. It found strong parallels between Section 7512 and Pennsylvania’s Construction Statute of Repose, which Magnus cited in support of his position. Guided by precedent, the Court concluded that Section 7512 is a statute of repose.

As a result, Gidor could not invoke the discovery rule to toll the one-year period until the winter of 2018–2019 when the damage was discovered. Because the complaint was filed more than two years after the inspection report was delivered, the claim was time-barred.

Significance for Inspection Firms

The Gidor decision significantly narrows the timeframe for claims against home inspectors and the companies that employ them. This ruling provides greater predictability and clarity regarding potential liability exposure.

To manage risk effectively:

• Maintain accurate records of all inspection reports.
• Implement a tracking system, such as a centralized log or software tool, that monitors report delivery dates and flags those approaching the one-year cutoff.
• Ensure that delivery dates are clearly documented and routinely updated.

By doing so, inspection firms and individual inspectors can reduce the likelihood of disputes and ensure compliance with the statute’s strict timeframe.

For more information, please contact Nicholas S. Franos at nicholas.franos@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.