 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Damron v. Media General Inc.5/25/1999
In this action, the plaintiff sought to represent a class of purchasers of a roofing product. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the product liability statute of repose, the applicable statute of limitations, the economic loss doctrine and laches. The Circuit Court of Lincoln County overruled the motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. We granted the defendants' motion for an interlocutory appeal under Rule 9, Tenn. R. App. Proc. We reverse the lower court's order and dismiss the action.
I.
Onduline roofing material is made of compressed paper fibers impregnated with asphalt. In the fall of 1979, Mr. Giles Damron, a Lincoln County farmer, bought approximately 5,300 square feet of the material to roof a pig barn. Before he completed the roof, he noticed that water collected on its underside and dripped on the barn floor. This problem turned out to be persistent, and despite Mr. Damron's efforts to correct it by painting the underside of the roof and installing a ventilation system, the roof continued to sweat. However, the water no longer dripped on the floor.
Three years later, the roof developed cracks and started to leak. Mr. Damron patched the roof with roofing cement, which temporarily stopped the leaks. Over the next two years, additional cracks appeared, however, and Mr. Damron finally covered the roof with tin.
On March 27, 1996, Mr. Damron filed suit in the Circuit Court for Lincoln County against three defendants that allegedly manufactured and distributed Onduline roofing materials. The complaint sought damages for breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, misrepresentation, negligence, strict liability, and fraud. Mr. Damron sought to represent a class of plaintiffs that had been damaged by the failure of Onduline products.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, alleging that Mr. Damron's claims were barred by the product liability statute of repose, the applicable statute of limitations, the economic loss doctrine, and laches. The plaintiff responded to the defendants' motion for summary judgment and moved for certification of the class. The court denied the motion for summary judgment and granted the class certification. The trial court and this court granted the defendants' Rule 9, Tenn. R. App. Proc. motion for permission to appeal.
II.
the statute of limitations/statute of repose
Actions seeking to recover damages for the harm caused by goods that fail to meet the promises of the sellers or are defective or unreasonably dangerous must be brought within specified time periods, depending on the harm alleged and -- sometimes -- on the cause of action. See Turner v. Aldor Co. of Nashville, Inc., 827 S.W.2d 318 (Tenn. App. 1991). In general, actions for damages to property must be brought within three years of the accrual of the cause of action, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-105(1), except where the action is based on a breach of warranty, in which case the action may be brought within four years of accrual. Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-725(1). "Accrual" occurs at different times for the different claims. Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-105(1) the cause of action does not accrue until discovery, Prescott v. Adams, 627 S.W.2d 134 (Tenn. App. 1981); under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-725(1), however, the cause of action generally accrues upon tender of delivery, and the time may run even before the breach is discovered. Layman v. Keller Ladders, Inc., 455 S.W.2d 594 (Tenn. 1970); Poppenheimer v. Bluff City Motor Homes, 658 S.W.2d 106 (Tenn. App. 1983).
The discovery rule allows actions to be brought well beyond the lim
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|