Act, Error, or Omission Trigger in Professional Negligence: Substantial-Factor Approach Under Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-107

Introduction

This commentary examines the certified-answer decision in Bankers Standard Insurance Company v. JTEC, Inc. (2025 WY 51), a question of Wyoming law posed by the Tenth Circuit under W.R.A.P. 11. The dispute turned on the triggering date for the statute of limitations in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-107, which governs malpractice claims against licensed professionals. Bankers Standard Insurance, subrogated to the claims of homeowners Lauren and David Grossman, sued JTEC alleging a defective engineering design in a residential water entry detail caused flooding and property damage. JTEC argued the two-year (plus six-month) limitations window had closed if the “act, error, or omission” occurred when its final plans were stamped on May 31, 2018. Bankers contended the operative misdesign was manifest no later than March 1, 2018, the date of the third revision. The certified question thus became: in a tort action against a professional engineer submitting multiple sealed design revisions with the same flaw, when does the § 1-3-107 limitation period attach?

Summary of the Judgment

The Wyoming Supreme Court answered that privity has no bearing in a tort-based malpractice action under § 1-3-107 and that the limitation attaches to the act, error, or omission that was “a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s injuries.” An engineer’s seal, while evidence that professional services were rendered, is not alone conclusive when each sealed revision contains the identical defect. Instead, the court must identify which revision was actually used in construction or manufacturing—the design that legally caused the home flood—and fix the trigger date to that design. Since the record did not reveal which set of plans the plumbers followed, the court could not determine here whether Bankers’ May 2022 suit was timely.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Prokop v. Hockhalter (2006 WY 75): Held § 1-3-107 applies to tort and contract causes of action alike and attaches to the professional act or omission regardless of privity.
Lucky Gate Ranch, LLC v. Baker & Associates (2009 WY 69): Interpreted that § 1-3-107 triggers on the date the act, error, or omission occurs, not when the cause of action “accrues.”
Adelizzi v. Stratton (2010 WY 148): Reaffirmed § 1-3-107 is unambiguous and refused to read accrual language into its text.
Pioneer Homestead Apartments III v. Sargent Engineers (2018 WY 80): Applied the occurrence rule to a single-plan negligence claim, fixing the trigger on the date the engineer stamped final plans.
Duke v. Housen (1979 WY ): Recognized in Wyoming that a tort statute of limitations runs from the wrongful act itself, “not legally severable from its consequences.”
Reinke Manufacturing Co. v. Hayes (Neb. 1999): Nebraska applied an occurrence rule, fixing the limitation to the date the defective engineering design was delivered before manufacturing—analogous to Wyoming’s approach.

Legal Reasoning

The court began by reaffirming that § 1-3-107 applies to “causes of action arising from an act, error or omission” in professional services—without mention of privity. Prior decisions confirmed the statute attaches to the professional act itself, not the later discovery of damages. The court found no ambiguity in the text and declined to insert privity terms absent from the statute. It then examined whether an engineer’s seal date automatically controls. Although Wyoming law requires engineering stamps on filings, the seal only shows professional involvement, not causation. When identical flaws appear in multiple sealed plan sets, the operative misdesign is the one actually used in construction—the “substantial factor” that proximately caused injury. Thus, the statute of limitations attaches to the date that specific defective design was put to use, not simply to the last stamp date in the contract sequence.

Impact

This decision establishes a clear, predictable framework for § 1-3-107 malpractice actions against engineers and other professionals. Future plaintiffs and defendants must:

Identify precisely which professional act or design iteration resulted in the harm.
Gather evidence on what plans were followed in the field or on the job site.
Avoid relying solely on seal or stamp dates when multiple revisions bear the same alleged defect.

For courts, the ruling will sharpen focus on causation in the statute-of-limitations inquiry and prevent technical seal-date gamesmanship. It also forecloses privity arguments as a basis to shift or delay the start of the § 1-3-107 clock in tort malpractice suits.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Privity: A direct contractual relationship. The Court clarified tort claims against professionals need no contractual link to fix the limitations date.
Occurrence Rule: The idea that a malpractice statute of limitations begins when the wrongful act or omission takes place, not when damages appear or are discovered.
Proximate Cause (Legal Cause): To trigger a cause of action, the professional’s breach must have been a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.
Professional Seal: Wyoming law requires licensed engineers to stamp their work. While proof of professional service, a seal alone does not determine which iteration caused the injury.
Discovery Rule vs. Occurrence Rule: § 1-3-107 contains both an occurrence-based trigger and a limited discovery extension—yet the key is identifying the act or omission that legally caused the harm.

Conclusion

Bankers Standard v. JTEC clarifies that under § 1-3-107, the statute of limitations for professional negligence in tort attaches not to the last stamp date or to the mere fact of sealing, but to the act, error, or omission that actually caused the plaintiff’s losses. Privity is irrelevant in tort. Where multiple sealed design versions carry the same flaw, the clock begins on the date the defective design was used—when it became a substantial factor in producing injury. This framework brings certainty and fairness to limitation disputes in professional-services malpractice litigation throughout Wyoming.