I have a question regarding question #1 on practice exam form #2 and the definition of “statute of limitations” verse “status of repose”
The question is "A project is built using AIA B101 as the owner-architect agreement. The project was built in a state where the statute of limitations is four years, but the architect’s office and residence are in another state where the statute of limitations is six years. Three years after the project is built, the client discovers mold and attributes the mold to a design error by the architect.
In this instance, what is the maximum time period after this discovery that the building owner has to bring a lawsuit?"
The answer is 4.
Given that the project is built in a state where the “statute of limitations” is four years, and the client discovers the mold after three years, then shouldn’t the answer be that the client has 1 year left to bring a lawsuit due to the fact that the “statue of limitation” timeline begins at substantial completion of the project, not at the time of discovery of the mold. If the question had indicated that the state had a “status of repose” of four years then I understand how the answer would be four, but the question clearly states “status of limitation” not “status of repose”. Can someone help explain the logic behind this question?