On Applications for Rehearing
STUART, Justice.
APPLICATIONS OVERRULED; NO OPINION.
Cobb, C.J., and Lyons, Woodall, Smith, Bolin, and Parker, JJ., concur.
Murdock and Shaw, JJ., dissent.
SHAW, Justice (dissenting).
On original submission, I concurred in Justice Murdock's special writing concurring in part and dissenting in part. Collins v. Scenic Homes, Inc., [Ms. 1070875, June 30, 2009] ___ So. ___ 3d ___, (Ala. 2009) (Murdock, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). By doing so, I specifically disagreed with the analysis in the main opinion as to issue II in the "Issues and Analysis" portion of that opinion, which addressed the application of the 20-year common-law rule of repose. It remains difficult for me to reconcile the conflicted and confusing language in many of our cases dealing with the rule of repose. However, I am clear to the conclusion that there is a fundamental difference recognized in American jurisprudence between a statute of limitations and a statute or rule of repose. Therefore, I once again assert my agreement with the concerns expressed in Justice Murdock's special writing. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the overruling of the applications for rehearing.