In Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Pattillo Constr. Co., 172 Ga. App. 452 (323 S.E.2d 649), Lumbermen's, as subrogee to its insured, sued Pattillo for damages to a building Pattillo constructed for the insured, asserting breach of contract and tort theories. Id. at 452. The original contract between Pattillo and the insured was not under seal. Id. at 453 (1). A subsequent amendment to the contract contained a recital of intent to use a seal; however, the word "seal" was printed by the insured's name but not Pattillo's. Id. Accordingly, we concluded that the parties' contract was not a sealed instrument as to Pattillo, and the 20-year statute of limitation under OCGA 9-3-23 was inapplicable. Id. In Pattillo, the Court had no cause to determine whether the language of the amendment at issue would permit us to conclude that the parties intended to elevate the status of their initial agreement. In the absence of the word "seal" by Pattillo's signature, the amendment was not under seal as to Pattillo, and, necessarily, could not convert the initial agreement into a contract under seal. The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the decision in Pattillo insofar as it affirmed the grant of summary judgment in Pattillo's favor on Lumbermen's tort claim for damages to the building based on negligent design and construction, holding the discovery rule applied to the statute of limitation in OCGA 9-3-30 and issues of fact existed regarding the date the owner knew or should have known of Pattillo's alleged negligence. Pattillo, supra, 254 Ga. at 465. The Supreme Court later overruled its decision in Pattillo. Corporation of Mercer Univ. v. Nat. Gypsum Co., 258 Ga. 365 (368 SE2d 732) (1988).