## Facts

- George and Crystal Tingler contracted with Graystone Homes, Inc. in 2009 to build a residence on land owned by Belle Meade Farm, LLC.
- After completion, rainwater intruded into the home and mold developed.
- Graystone attempted multiple repairs and mold remediation efforts, but the alleged problems persisted and worsened.
- Plaintiffs alleged certain repair/remediation work was performed carelessly and spread or aggravated mold contamination.
- The Tingler family alleged health symptoms from mold exposure and ultimately left the home.
- In 2015, the Tingler family and Belle Meade filed suit asserting numerous tort, contract, and statutory claims.
- By consent order, claims were refiled as separate personal-injury complaints and a combined complaint for non–personal injury claims (including economic loss and property damage).
- The circuit court sustained Graystone’s demurrers and dismissed all claims in each complaint; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether negligence claims based on defective construction and weatherproofing are barred by Virginia’s source-of-duty rule because the relevant duties arise solely from the construction contract.
2. Whether allegations that Graystone negligently performed post-construction repairs state a tort claim based on a common-law duty independent of the contract.
3. Whether the Tinglers and Belle Meade adequately pleaded contractual standing and rights (including agency and third-party beneficiary theories) to pursue contract-based claims.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- It affirmed dismissal of negligence claims premised on duties to properly construct and weatherproof the home, because those duties were contractual.
- It reversed dismissal of tort claims alleging negligent post-construction repairs, holding such claims may rest on an independent common-law duty to use reasonable care when undertaking repairs and not worsen conditions or create new hazards.
- It reversed dismissal of the Tinglers’ and Belle Meade’s contract and related contractual claims, finding the pleadings sufficiently alleged contractual rights and standing.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under Virginia’s source-of-duty rule, a claim sounds in contract (not tort) when the duty allegedly breached is created solely by the parties’ agreement, even if the plaintiff pleads negligence and seeks damages that include personal injury or property damage.
- A party that voluntarily undertakes repairs can owe a common-law duty to perform the repairs with reasonable care and may be liable in tort if the repair work creates a new danger or aggravates an existing condition.
- On demurrer, courts accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.
- Contract-based claims may proceed where pleadings plausibly allege a plaintiff’s contractual rights or enforceable status connected to the agreement (including through agency or third-party beneficiary theories).

## Conclusion

The court held that construction-defect allegations tied to contractual duties are not actionable in tort, but negligent post-construction repairs may support tort liability because they can breach an independent common-law duty; it also reinstated contract-based claims for further litigation.


Tingler v. Graystone Homes, Inc., 834 S.E.2d 244 (Va. 2019)