COA Refuses To Extend 'Completed And Accepted Rule' To Service Contracts

In Griggs v. Shamrock Bldg. Servs., Inc., filed today, the COA refused to extend what is known as the 'completed and accepted rule' to service contracts and signaled the potential future demise of the rule in NC.

Under the completed and accepted rule, an independent contractor is generally not liable for injuries to third persons after the contractor has completed the work and the work has been accepted by the owner. The Griggs court pointed out that only three prior NC cases deal with the completed and accepted rule. One of those cases, Thrift v. Food Lion, Inc., 111 N.C. App. 758, 433 S.E.2d 481 (1993), rev'd 336 N.C. 309, 442 S.E.2d 504 (1994), stated that NC courts have applied the completed and accepted rule only in the context of construction contracts, refused to extend the rule to the delivery of goods, and noted that the rule was in decline.

Today the COA found Griggs, in which Shamrock Building Services cleaned plaintiff's workplace (RPM Wood Finishes Group) and allegedly left a slick residue on which plaintiff slipped and fell, to be most analogous to the ice delivery at issue in Thrift. Similar to Thrift, therefore, the COA "decline[d] to extend the application of the rule to service contracts." Importantly, the COA also noted that the accepted and completed rule has come under attack and "decline[d] to expand the application of the rule when the rule is being abandoned, even in the context of construction contracts, in favor of modern rules of foreseeability."

Griggs makes clear that folks outside the construction arena should not pin their hopes on the completed and accepted rule but should expect general principles of negligence to govern. Further, Griggs indicates that our courts are aware of the completed and accepted rule's demise elsewhere and could be inclined to follow suit in the future.