WPCk: {,QPEߟFGl֦Hy؛qɊE #ԃCݹ-3^jVTs.,&DE|홳1Y_ZEJ9:r6 :En]3l@UЈ x J80u A()7wd1)kbbcmƣ8ݣFhNu2>`3l@͸yrV [G/.oY0oN@?O\dn#Kjʊ^8I qD5D‘Sx, [8}ldaoWgT{b^-B# UN % 0DUF?w4s-p 0; 0D UF2 UFx  D3]^  m&6=Es IU:UFVp B N)/(+UFSUFUFUF%6kUF!w!UF^% %UF(UN(yC)I,/UF1 AQ1$2,2 0D2 0D63 0Dz33UF]5UF5 D/5 B66a56UF8UF8UF"9h9HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(L$X<4 9Z .Courier New Regular'D  D   DDDDDDD !"E#$%&e'D(Ӏ2օ#%P 3|x2 ##uXd# f_XFmXXX   fX  XFmXXXFm `   5    Thefouryearstatuteofrepose,Tenn.CodeAnn.283202   (1980),whichwewilldiscussinthecontextofnuisance,infra, b  appliesonlytoclaimsinvolvingtheconstructionofsomekindofimprovement.Thus,itdoesnotapplytotheclaimthatHillconcealedorotherwisefailedtodisclosetheexistenceofperiodicheavyflooding.XFmXXXFm(c(2v$ L!X    X&XXX `   0  (#$  0  <4 9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular   v$X  X&XXX `   1    _%X&XXX&OralargumentwasheardinthiscaseinJohnsonCity,   Tennessee,aspartofthisCourts_S.C.A.L.E.S._Ԁ(SupremeCourtAdvancingLegalEducationforStudents)project.'dxdD|B% ~_XFmXXX   fX  XFmXXXFm `   7    TennesseeCodeAnnotated282203(1980)willextendthe   fouryeardeadlineoneadditionalyearfromthedateoftheinjury,iftheinjuryoccurredinthefourthyearaftersubstantialcompletionoftheimprovement.Thedamagetotheinsideoftheplaintiffshousedidoccurinthefourthyear,inJune1992.Thus,theyhadatmostuntilJune1993tobringsuit,buttheywaiteduntilDecember1994todoso.U ,_  fX  XFmXXX `   2    Theotherdefendantsincludedvariousengineeringand   constructioncompanieswhichhelpedtodevelopFountainGateIandaneighboringsubdivision,FountainGateII,aswellastherealtycompanythroughwhichtheplaintiffspropertywaslisted.TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthesummaryjudgmententeredinfavorofthesedefendants,andtheyarenotpartiestothisappeal. ;  f$X  @XFmXXX `   4    _Althoughourordergrantingpermissiontoappealreferredto   claimsof fraudandnegligentconcealment,afurtherreviewoftherecordrevealsthat,withrespecttoHillsknowledgeofthepropertystendencytoflood,plaintiffsallegationsencompassonlyaclaimof fraudintheinducement.Wewillthereforeconfineourdiscussionto fraudulentconcealment. _XFmXXX   fX  XFmXXXFm `   6    Thethreeyearstatuteoflimitations,Tenn.CodeAnn.28   3105,doesnotbarthenuisanceclaim,becausewhenanuisanceistemporaryandcontinuousinnature,theverycontinuationofthenuisanceisanewoffenseentitlingplaintiffstorecoverdamagesoccurringwithintheapplicablelimitationsperiod,eventhoughthenuisancehasexistedlongerthanthatlimitationsperiod.Kindv. . JohnsonCity,63Tenn.App.666,672,478S.W.2d63,66#XLXXXFm#XFmXXXLԀ(1970). ?  f$X  XFmXXX `   4    _Althoughourordergrantingpermissiontoappealreferredto   claimsof fraudandnegligentconcealment,afurtherreviewoftherecordrevealsthat,withrespecttoHillsknowledgeofthepropertystendencytoflood,theplaintiffsallegationsencompassonlyaclaimof fraudintheinducement.Wewillthereforeconfineourdiscussionto fraudulentconcealment.,cAZ"Arial Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular f_"XFmXXX   fX  #XFmXXXFm `   5    Thefouryearstatuteofrepose,Tenn.CodeAnn.283202   (1980),whichwewilldiscussinthecontextofnuisance,infra, b  appliesonlytoclaimsinvolvingtheconstructionofsomekindofimprovement.Thus,itdoesnotapplytotheclaimthatHillconcealedorotherwisefailedtodisclosetheexistenceofperiodicheavyflooding.$XFmXXXFm d&'dEAHib011s19<4 9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular ,_  fX  'XFmXXX `   2    Theotherdefendantsincludedvariousengineeringand   constructioncompanieswhichhelpedtodevelopFountainGateIandaneighboringsubdivision,FountainGateII,aswellastherealtycompanythroughwhichtheplaintiffspropertywaslisted.TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthesummaryjudgmententeredinfavorofthesedefendants,andtheyarenotpartiestothisappeal.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular m_  fX  )XFmXXX `   3    Thescopeofouropinionwillbedefinedbytheissuesas   describedinourordergrantingpermissiontoappeal.However,wenotethatsomediscrepancieshaveappearedwithrespecttowhichclaimisassertedagainstwhichdefendant.Inthecomplaint,theplaintiffsallegedthatHillalonecreatedthenuisance.Incontrast,theCourtofAppealspreservedtheclaimofnuisanceagainstbothHillandHillHomeDevelopment. ` TheplaintiffsalsoallegedintheircomplaintthatbothHillandHillHomeDevelopmentcommittedfraudulentconcealment.TheCourtofAppealspreservedV  theWclaimofX  ԀYfraudulentconcealmentagainstHillalone.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular _+XFmXXX   fX  +XFmXXXFm `   6    Thethreeyearstatuteoflimitations,Tenn.CodeAnn.28   3105,doesnotbarthenuisanceclaim,becausewhenanuisanceistemporaryandcontinuousinnature,theverycontinuationofthenuisanceisanewoffenseentitlingplaintiffstorecoverdamagesoccurringwithintheapplicablelimitationsperiod,eventhoughthenuisancehasexistedlongerthanthatlimitationsperiod.Kindv. . JohnsonCity,63Tenn.App.666,672,478S.W.2d63,66#,XLXXXFm#+XFmXXXLԀ(1970).<4 9Z .Courier New Regular(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular o_  fX  XFmXXX `   3    Thescopeofouropinionwillbedefinedbytheissuesas   describedinourordergrantingpermissiontoappeal.However,wenotethatsomediscrepancieshaveappearedwithrespecttowhichclaimisassertedagainstwhichdefendant.Inthecomplaint,theplaintiffsallegedthatHillalonecreatedthenuisance.Incontrast,theCourtofAppealspreservedtheclaimofnuisanceagainstbothHillandHillHomeDevelopment. ` TheplaintiffsalsoallegedintheircomplaintthatbothHillandHillHomeDevelopmentcommittedfraudulentconcealment.TheCourtofAppealspreservedV  theWclaimofX  ԀYfraudulentconcealmentagainstHillalone. ?  f$X  XFmXXX `   4    _Althoughourordergrantingpermissiontoappealreferredto   claimsof fraudandnegligentconcealment,afurtherreviewoftherecordrevealsthat,withrespecttoHillsknowledgeofthepropertystendencytoflood,theplaintiffsallegationsencompassonlyaclaimof fraudintheinducement.Wewillthereforeconfineourdiscussionto fraudulentconcealment. ~_0XFmXXX   fX  0XFmXXXFm `   7    TennesseeCodeAnnotated282203(1980)willextendthe   fouryeardeadlineoneadditionalyearfromthedateoftheinjury,iftheinjuryoccurredinthefourthyearaftersubstantialcompletionoftheimprovement.Thedamagetotheinsideoftheplaintiffshousedidoccurinthefourthyear,inJune1992.Thus,theyhadatmostuntilJune1993tobringsuit,buttheywaiteduntilDecember1994todoso.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular3456:C<< C Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1     f$X  8XFmXXX `   1    _9XFmXXXFmOralargumentwasheardinthiscaseinJohnsonCity,   Tennessee,aspartofthisCourts_S.C.A.L.E.S._Ԁ(SupremeCourtAdvancingLegalEducationforStudents)project.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular;;' dxdP Pd W_>XFmXXX   fX  ?XFmXXXFm `   2    Theotherdefendantsincludedvariousengineeringand   constructioncompanieswhichhelpedtodevelopFountainGateIandaneighboringsubdivision,FountainGateII,aswellastherealtycompanythroughwhichtheplaintiffspropertywaslisted.TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthesummaryjudgmententeredinfavorofthesedefendants,andtheyarenotsubjecttothisappeal.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular 4"  XKSXXX(XXKS   Ad FILEDXKSX(  October26,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh L!X  &&_X&XXX   ;$XX XX$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T 7XXdd7  =XXdd=Ӝ222((r1A<,(j 8` `@E  ` 8ttxPX  r2((2t1A>.*jxt` `@E" ` 8ttxPZb t tߛ2@DINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@tt)DATKNOXVILLE@$D(HEARDATJOHNSONCITY)JAMESANDCAROLYN_CHRISMAN_Ԁ)FORPUBLICATION    h      p )̀PlaintiffsAppellees   p )FILED:OCTOBER26,1998 @      h      p )v.    h      p )KNOXCOUNTY `      h      p )HILLHOMEDEVELOPMENT,INC.   p )HON.WHEELER_ROSENBALM_,   andJIMHILL   h      p )  JUDGE n Ѐ   p ) D ЀDefendantsAppellants p )NO.03S019706CV00077  ForAppellees:   h      p   ForAppellants: # DONALDE._OVERTON_Ԁ     p   _TERRILL_ԀL._ADKINS_ L%  _GLENNA_ԀW._OVERTON_ h      p   Knoxville,TN "&! Knoxville,TN   h      p    &l"     h      p   @,DOPINION *0%- REVERSED    h   0  0p%%0p%p%0 %%0x % %0 x%x%BIRCH,J.8-7 % % x   \9.8   ;  7&XXdXXd7     WegrantedpermissiontoappealunderRule11,Tenn.R.   App.P.,_&&&7&  #  1      _ԀtoJimHillandHillHomeDevelopment,Inc.,the 8  defendants,inordertodeterminewhethertheyareentitledtosummaryjudgmentontheplaintiffsclaimsofconcealmentornuisance.Withregardtotheclaimofconcealment,wefindthatHillisentitledtosummaryjudgmentbecausehehasdemonstratedthattheplaintiffsareunabletoproveanessentialelementoftheirclaim.Asrespectstheclaimofnuisance,wefindthatthestatuteofreposebarsthatclaim,therebyentitlingthedefendantstosummaryjudgment. TherecordindicatesthatHillHomeDevelopment,acorporationownedbyHill,developedaKnoxvillesubdivisionknownasFountainGateI.Asthedeveloper,HillHomeDevelopmentcontractedwithcivilengineeringandconstructioncompaniesforthedesignandinstallationofasurfacewaterdrainagesystem.Theplaintiffs,JamesandCarolyn_Chrisman_,negotiatedwithHillandpurchasedahouseandlotinFountainGateIonDecember8,1988. Afewweeksaftermovingin,theplaintiffsnoticedheavyfloodingintheiryard,intheadjacentproperty,andinthestreetinfrontoftheirhouse.Theydescribethisfloodingasa lakeintheirbackyardanda riverrunningthroughthearea.InJune1989,approximatelysixmonthsaftermovingin,floodwaterdamagedthecomponentsoftheirheatairconditioningunitwhichwas X4)2 locatednexttothehouse,ina selfcontainedconcretearea,withabrickretainingwallaroundit.InJune1992,afteraseverestorm,waterfloodedtheinterioroftheirhomeandcausedsubstantialdamage. TheplaintiffsfiledsuitonDecember29,1994,againstHill,HillHomeDevelopment,andseveralothers.&&&&&=  #  2      ׀Theplaintiffs   claimed,first,thatHillhadcreatedatemporarycontinuingnuisanceintheconstructionoftheFountainGateIsubdivision.Inthesecondclaim,theyallegedthatHillandHillHomeDevelopmenthadconcealedthefactthattheplaintiffspropertyissubjecttoperiodicheavyflooding. Inthetrialcourt,alldefendantsmovedforsummaryjudgment;HillandHillHomeDevelopmentbasedtheirmotion,atleastinpart,onthecontentionthattheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsandstatuteofreposebarredtheplaintiffsclaims.Thetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttoeachdefendant.TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthedismissalofallclaimsexceptclaimsof fraudulentandnegligentconcealmentagainstHillandnuisanceagainstbothHillandHillHomeDevelopment.TheCourtofAppealsfoundthatthoseclaimswerenottimebarred,reversedthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment,andremandedthoseclaimsfortrialonthemerits. 1t&. Ї HillandHillHomeDevelopmentfiledanapplicationforpermissiontoappeal.Wegrantedthatapplicationtoaddressthefollowingtwoissues:8 8 (1)Whetherthe[CourtofAppeals]erredinreversingsummaryjudgmentinfavorofJimHillandHillHomeDevelopmentconcerningallegationstheycreatedacontinuingnuisance&-&&(&  #  3      כ; 2  and xx 8 8 (2)Whetherthe[CourtofAppeals]erredinreversingsummaryjudgmentinfavorofJimHillinhispersonalcapacityconcerningallegationsoffraudandnegligentconcealment.&. && &   #  4       xx Becausethedecisiontograntordenysummaryjudgmentinvolvesquestionsoflawonly,wereviewthatdecisiondenovo,withno : presumptionofcorrectness._Hembree_Ԁv.State,925S.W.2d513,515 r (Tenn.1996). Wefirstaddresstheclaimoffraudulentconcealment.TheallegationisthatHillconcealedthefactthatthepropertyis "&! subjecttoperiodicheavyflooding.Hillcontendsthatnogenuineissueofmaterialfactexistsandthatheisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw,or,inthealternative,thatthethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsbarstheseclaims.& &&&  #  5      ׀Ontheotherhand,the  plaintiffsinsistthatevenifthethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsappliesweretoapply,thedamageoccurredinJune1992,wellwithinthreeyearsoffilingsuit,andthatHillisnotentitledtosummaryjudgmentonthatbasis.Ourdecisiononthedisputeofmaterialfactissue_&&pretermits&&_Ԁanyconsiderationsofthestatuteoflimitationsforthefraudulentconcealmentclaim. InconsideringthequestionwhetherHillisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflawontheissueoffraudulentconcealment,wemustbearinmindthatthiscaseishereinthecontextofsummaryjudgment.PursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.56.04,summaryjudgmentisgrantedtothemovingpartyifthemovingpartycomplieswithRule56.03andtherecordshowsthat thereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Indeterminingwhetheragenuineissueofmaterialfactexistsforpurposesofsummaryjudgment,courtsmustviewthefactsinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingpartyanddiscardallcountervailingevidence.Ifacourtdeterminesthatadisputeexistsastoanymaterialfactoranydoubtexistsastotheconclusionstobedrawnfromthefacts, 1t&. themotionmustbedenied.Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,21011   (Tenn.1993). Thematerialfactsaregenerallyundisputed. Thep  P laintiffsboughttheresidenceinDecember1988and,withinweeksofmovingin,begannoticingaheavyflowofwaterintheiryardandinthestreet._Chrisman_Ԁstatedinhisdepositionthatfromthetimeheandhiswifeoccupiedtheresidence,aheavyrunoffontheirpropertywasa normalthingafteraheavyrain.Healsostatedthathebecameconcernedabouttherunoffanditseffectonpropertyvalueasearlyas1989,andhespoketoHillabouttheproblematthattime.Further,intheircomplainttheplaintiffsallege d thattheirheatairconditioningunit,locatedonthesideofthehouseclosesttothedrainageeasement,hadbeendamagedbywaterinJune1989. Hillinsist ed  s thatsummaryjudgmentwaisappropriatebecausetheplaintiffspresentedhaveadducednoevidencetosupporttheirallegationsoffraudulentconcealment.Insupportofhismotion,Hillassertedthattheplaintiffsweareunabletoproveanessentialelementoftheirclaim.SeeAlexanderv.MemphisIndividual +p!( Practice_Assn_,870S.W.2d278,280(Tenn.1993).Mere_conclusory_ -#* assertionsthatthenonmovingpartyhasnoevidenceareclearlyinsufficient.The_movant_Ԁmustaffirmativelynegateanessentialelementofthenon_movant_sclaimbypointingtouncontradictedevidenceintherecordwhichsupportstheassertion.Robinsonv. X4)2 _Omer_,952S.W.2d423,426(Tenn.1997);Byrd,847S.W.2dat215. 6x+4  7$-6  Thetortoffraudulentconcealmentiscommittedwhenapartywhohasadutytodiscloseaknownfactorconditionfailstodoso,andanotherpartyreasonablyreliesupontheresultingmisrepresentation,therebysufferinginjury.Simmonsv.Evans,185  Tenn.282,285,206S.W.2d295,296(Tenn.1947);Justicev. < AndersonCounty,955S.W.2d613,616(Tenn.App.1997).Insupport \  ofhismotionforsummaryjudgment,Hillassertedthattheplaintiffscouldnotproveanessentialelementofthetort񄄼knowledge.Hepointedtohisaffidavitintherecordstatingthat `  hehadnoknowledgeoffloodingpriortoDecember1988.Healsopointedto_Chrisman_sdepositioninwhichChrismanaffirmatively&admited&&admitted&shavingnoprooftosupporttheallegationthatHillhadanypriorknowledgeofflooding.Thus,Hillproperlysupportedhismotionforsummaryjudgmentonthisground. Onceproperlysupported,theburdenshiftstothenonmovingpartyto setforthspecificfactsestablishingtheexistenceofdisputed,materialfactswhichmustberesolvedbythetrieroffact._Bain_Ԁv.Wells,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997). ($$ Theplaintiffscandothisby:(1)pointingtoevidenceintherecordwhichwasoverlookedorignoredbythemovingparty;(2)rehabilitatingchallengedevidence;(3)producingadditionalevidence;or(4)submittinganaffidavitrequestingadditionaltimefordiscovery.See_McCarley_Ԁv.WestQualityFoodServ.,960S.W.2d  1&. 585,588(Tenn.1998);Byrd,847S.W.2dat215n.6. 2,(0  ThepPlaintiffsfiledaresponseinoppositiontoHillssummaryjudgmentmotion.Wehavecarefullyreviewedthatresponse 70-6 andfailtofindanythingaddressingHillscontentionthattheplaintiffscannotprovetheessentialelementofknowledge.Viewingthefactsinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingpartiesanddiscardingallcountervailingevidence, the plaintiffshavenotmettheirburdeninresponsetoHillsproperlysupportedsummaryjudgmentmotion.BecauseHillhasdemonstratedthattheplaintiffsareunabletoproveanessentialelementoftheirclaimoffraudulentconcealment,wereversetheCourtofAppealssdenialofsummaryjudgmenttoHillonthatclaim. ThenextissueconcernstheclaimthatHillandHillHomeDevelopmentcreatedacontinuingnuisanceintheconstructionofthedrainagesysteminFountainGateI.Thetrialcourt,asstated,grantedsummaryjudgmenttoHillandHillHomeDevelopment.Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsreversed,findingthatthecontinuationofthenuisancethruststheclaimwellintoanylimitationsperiod. Thedefendantsinsistthatthefouryearstatuteofrepose,Tenn.CodeAnn.283202(1980),barsthenuisanceclaim.&&&*&  #  6      ׀TennesseeCodeAnnotated283202provides: +p!( 8 8  h Allactionstorecoverdamagesforanydeficiencyinthedesign,planning,supervision,observationofconstruction,orconstructionof 1t&. animprovementtorealproperty,forinjurytoproperty,realorpersonal,arisingoutofanysuchdeficiency,orforinjurytothepersonorforwrongfuldeatharisingoutofanysuchdeficiency,shallbebroughtagainstanypersonperformingorfurnishingthedesign,planning,supervision,observationofconstruction,constructionof,orlandsurveyinginconnectionwith,suchanimprovementwithinfour(4)yearsaftersubstantialcompletionofsuchanimprovement.^: xx Thestatuteofreposewillbaranactionfouryearsaftersubstantialcompletion,regardlessofwhentheplaintiffmayhavereasonablydiscoveredtheinjury.&&&/&  #  7      ׀Thediscoveryrule,utilizedto  ascertainwhenacauseofactionhasaccruedunderastatuteoflimitations,doesnottollthestatuteofrepose.Wattsv.Putnam r County,525S.W.2d488,491(Tenn.1975).Thispointisemphasized ! byTenn.CodeAnn.283204(1980),whichstatesthat [_n]othing_inthispartshallbeconstruedasextendingtheperiod,orperiodsprovidedbythelawsofTennesseeorbyagreementbetweenthepartiesforthebringingofanyaction. Thus,becauseFountainGateIwassubstantiallycompletedinDecember1988,thedefendantsassertthattheplaintiffssuitwasbarredfouryearsafterthatdate.Ontheotherhand,theplaintiffscontendthatTenn.CodeAnn.283202,whichthey *0%- characterizeasan engineeringnegligencestatuteoflimitations,appliesonlytoclaimsofnegligence.Becausenuisanceisastrictliabilityactioninwhichnegligenceisirrelevant,theyinsistthatTenn.CodeAnn.283202isinapplicable. TheplaintiffsdidnotfilesuituntilDecember1994,sixyearsaftersubstantialcompletion.Therefore,ifTenn.CodeAnn.283202isapplicable,itwillunquestionablybartheirnuisanceclaim.The_dispositive_Ԁquestion,then,iswhether283202appliestothenuisanceclaim.Weconcludethatitdoes. Inansweringthisquestion,wefirstnotethattheplainlanguageofthestatuteisinescapable:allactionstorecover  damages,causedbyanydeficiencyinthedesignorconstructionofanimprovement,shallbebroughtwithinfouryearsofsubstantialcompletionoftheimprovement.Inordertoconstruethestatuteassuggestedbytheplaintiffs,wewouldhavetofindthattheterm deficiencynarrowsthestatutesscopetoactionsbasedonlyonanegligencetheoryhardlyanaturalreadingofthestatute.Whenconstruingastatute,courtscannotgiveitaforcedorsubtleconstructioninanefforttolimitorextendtheimportofthelanguage._Worrall_Ԁv.KrogerCo.,545S.W.2d736,738(Tenn.1977). -#*  Further,theplaintiffsinterpretationofTenn.CodeAnn.283202wouldrepudiatelegislativeintent.Inenactingthestatute,theGeneralAssemblyintendedtoinsulatecontractors,architects,engineers,andothersfromliabilityfordefectiveconstructionordesignofimprovementstorealty!wheret!"!eh!"#heinjury 7$-6 happensmorethanfouryearsaftersubstantialcompletionoftheϜ#&#improvment#&##&improvement&#.#'.'񛀀Watts,525S.W.2dat492.Thesepersonsarenotat 8  allinsulatedifplaintiffsareallowedtocircumventthestatuteofreposemerelybystickinga nuisancelabelonanegligenceclaim. Moreover,Tenn.CodeAnn.283202haspreviouslybeenconstruedtobaractionsotherthannegligenceactions.In_Lonning_ @  v.JimWalterHomes,Inc.,725S.W.2d682(Tenn.App.1987),the `  CourtofAppealsapplied283202tobarasuitthatincludedclaimsoffraudulentmisrepresentationandbreachofexpresswarranty.TheCourtofAppealsalsoappliedthestatutetoasuitthatincludedclaimsofstrictliability,breachofimpliedandexpresswarranties,andmisrepresentation._Pridemark_ԀCustom H  Plating,Inc.v.Upjohn,Co.,702S.W.2d566(Tenn.App.1985) !h (findingthatthestatuteofreposedidnotbartheclaimondifferentgrounds).Likenuisance,theseclaimsdonotrequireproofofnegligence,yetthestatuteofreposeapplieswithequaleffecttoallofthem. Castingacauseofactionintermsofnuisancedoesnotrenderthefouryearstatuteofreposeinapplicable.ThisistruebecausethedesignationgiventoacauseofactiondoesnotnecessarilyorconclusivelydeterminewhetherTenn.CodeAnn.283202applies.Rather,wemustlooktothesubstantiveallegationsofthecomplaint.Intheinstantcase,thecomplaintcontainsa multitudeofallegationswithaconsiderableamountofblendingand 6x+4 duplication.However,thepertinentallegations,aswehavedistilledthem,areasfollows: |P8 8 13.Bytheconstructionof_Fountaingate_ԀIsubdivision,DefendantHillhascreatedandmaintainedatemporarycontinuingdrainagenuisancewhichhascausedfloodingontoPlaintiffsproperty.SaidfloodinghasinflictedphysicalharmtoPlaintiffspropertyandcausedandwillcauselossofuseandenjoymentofPlaintiffsoftheirproperty.... xx 8 8 ... xx 8 8 15.Hill,inhisconstructionof_Fountaingate_ԀIsubdivision,wasnegligentinthatmeasureswerenotinstalledin_Fountaingate_ԀIsubdivisiontopreventtheincreasesinrunoffgeneratedbyconstructionof_Fountaingate_ԀIsubdivisiontonotcausefloodingofPlaintiffsproperty. xx 8 8 ... xx 8 8  h WHEREAS:PlaintiffspraythatthisCourtwillruleasfollows: xx 8 8  h 1.ThatDefendantHillhascreatedatemporarycontinuingnuisanceinthedevelopmentandconstructionof_Fountaingate_ԀIsubdivisionwhichhasdamagedPlaintiffspropertyandinterferedwiththeiruseandenjoymentoftheirproperty, xx 8 8  h 2.ThatHillwasnegligentandgrosslynegligentandrecklessintheconstructionof_Fountaingate_ԀIsubdivisiontherebycausinginjurytoPlaintiffspropertyandinterferingwiththeiruseandenjoymentoftheirproperty,....P xx  Basedupontheabovequotedallegations,wehavenodifficultyfindingthattheinstantactionisan action$[]$to 7$-6 recoverdamagesforanydeficiencyinthedesign,planning,supervision,observationofconstruction,orconstructionofanimprovementtorealproperty.Tenn.CodeAnn.283202.Attheheartoftheplaintiffsnuisanceclaimliestheallegationthatthedrainagesystemisdeficient.Interestingly,theplaintiffshavemaintainedthatthefactssupportingtheirnuisanceclaimalsosupportanegligenceclaim.Therefore,theplaintiffsnuisanceclaimisbarredbythefouryearstatuteofrepose. Asafinalmatter,wefindthatthe fraudexceptiontothefouryearstatuteofrepose,Tenn.CodeAnn.283205(1980),doesnotsavetheplaintiffsnuisanceclaim.Section283205canprevent283202fromapplyingtoacauseofaction,ifthedefendantis guiltyoffraudinperformingorfurnishingthedesign,planning,supervision,observationofconstruction,constructionof,orlandsurveying,inconnectionwithsuchanimprovement,orifthedefendant shallwrongfullyconcealanysuchcauseofaction. AlthoughHillmaynothavedisclosedthefactthatthepropertyissubjecttoperiodicheavyflooding,theplaintiffsdonot,andcannot,arguethatHillconcealedthecauseofactionfornuisance.Asamatteroffact,thisallegednuisancewasapparent,andtheplaintiffswereawareofitwithinweeksofpurchasingtheproperty.Further,inordertotriggerTenn.CodeAnn.283205underthetheoryoffraud,theplaintiffsmustallegefraudin X4)2 connectionwiththedesignorconstructionofanimprovement. 6x+4 However,theplaintiffshavenotallegedfraudinconnectionwith 7$-6 thedrainagesystem;rather,theirallegationsoffraudconcernwhetherthedefendantwithheldinformationaboutthepropertystendencytoflood.Consequently,Tenn.CodeAnn.283205doesnotpreventapplicationofthestatuteofreposetothenuisanceclaim.Itis,therefore,untimely. Insum,weholdthatunderthecircumstancesofthiscase,summaryjudgmentisappropriatefortheclaimoffraudulentconcealmentagainstHill,becauseHilldemonstratedthat%the%plaintiffswillbeunabletoprovetheessentialelementofknowledge.WeholdalsothatsummaryjudgmentisappropriateforthenuisanceclaimagainstHillandHillHomeDevelopment,becauseasamatteroflawthefouryearstatuteofrepose,Tenn.CodeAnn.283202,barsthatclaim. Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsisreversed.    h      p ______________________________    h      p ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,JusticeCONCUR:   Anderson,C.J._Drowota_,Reid,Holder,JJ.