In Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 39 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 685 (Tex. 1996), the supreme court in Ryland reinstated the trial court's summary judgment, reversing the appellate court's ruling that the plaintiff had demonstrated an issue of fact concerning fraudulent concealment or willful misconduct by the defendant builder. 924 S.W.2d at 122. The plaintiffs sued after they were injured by the collapse of a wooden deck on a house that defendant built fifteen years earlier. They alleged negligence in the use of untreated lumber for the "runner board" of the deck, which then rotted and collapsed. Id. at 121. To avoid application of the ten-year statute of repose, the plaintiffs submitted the affidavit of a construction expert who opined that the use of untreated lumber when treated lumber "is specified" in the plans constituted willful misconduct. Id. at 122. He also opined, "It is my understanding that neither the builder nor the subsequent deck renovator notified the inspectors, appraisers, owners, tenants, or any other party with an interest in the home of the use of the untreated wood. This failure to notify amounts to a concealment of a known violation of the specifications and industry practice." Id. Although the court of appeals found this sufficient to create a fact issue, the supreme court held that the affidavit offered no evidence that the builder knew that untreated lumber was used, and therefore was no evidence of willful misconduct in the use of the wood. Id. The supreme court further determined that the affiant's "understanding" that the builder did not notify anyone about the use of untreated wood was not evidence that the builder did not notify anyone. Id. The supreme court further dismissed as conclusory the assertion in the affidavit that Ryland's failure to notify anyone about the use of untreated lumber was concealment of a known violation of specifications and building standards. Id. The court held that this conclusory assertion was no evidence of willful misconduct. Id.