Title: Paquette v. Deere and Co.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Paquette v. Deere & Co.  (97-389); 168 Vt. 258; 719 A.2d 410

[Filed 4-Sep-1998]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                            No. 97-389

Emile and Marjorie Paquette                  Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       Addison Superior Court

Deere and Company and Oshkosh                February Term, 1998
Truck Corporation

Matthew I. Katz, J.

       David M. Klein of Bauer, Anderson and Gravel, Burlington, for
  Plaintiffs-Appellants.

       Thomas P. Simm of McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper and Burchard, P.C.,
  Burlington, for Defendants-Appellees.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       JOHNSON, J.   Plaintiffs appeal the superior court's order dismissing
  their suit seeking compensation for economic losses incurred when they
  traded in their allegedly defective motor home.  We conclude that
  plaintiffs' warranty claims were not brought within the relevant
  limitations period, and that their products liability claims could not be
  based upon the purely economic losses incurred in this particular case. 
  Accordingly, we affirm the superior court's judgment.

       Because judgment was granted on the pleadings in this case, we accept
  as true all well pleaded factual allegations contained in the complaint and
  all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those allegations.  See
  Thayer v. Herdt, 155 Vt. 448, 456, 586 A.2d 1122, 1126 (1990).  According
  to their complaint, plaintiffs purchased a new John Deere Superchief

 

  Winnebago on August 2, 1989 for $64,000.  Beginning in 1990, plaintiffs
  began experiencing problems with the motor home resulting from defective
  electrical wiring.  The engine would cut out and stall, which in turn
  affected the performance of the brakes.  Plaintiffs made several attempts
  to repair the vehicle, but the problems recurred.  On September 23, 1994,
  plaintiffs were involved in an accident as a result of these problems.

       Approximately one month after the accident, plaintiffs received a
  recall notice, dated September 6, 1994, which warned of electrical problems
  that could result in engine stalling and partial brake failure.  The notice
  asked owners who were experiencing such problems to stop using their motor
  homes and bring them in for repair.  After receiving the notice, plaintiffs
  had their motor home repaired and continued to use it.  Later, while
  traveling in Florida in March 1995, plaintiffs began having the same
  problems with the motor home that had previously occurred.  Feeling that
  the vehicle was not safe enough to drive back to Vermont, plaintiffs traded
  it in for $22,000 and purchased another, less expensive motor home. 
  Plaintiffs claim that they incurred a final loss in excess of $33,000 by
  having to trade their motor home in at a reduced value due to its defective
  condition.

       In October 1996, plaintiffs filed suit against Deere and Company and
  Oshkosh Truck Corporation alleging strict products liability, negligent
  products liability, breach of an implied warranty of merchantability, and
  breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.  The
  superior court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings,
  ruling that (1) self-destruction of the product itself cannot form the
  basis for products liability or negligence claims; and (2) the statute of
  limitations had run on the warranty claims.  On appeal, plaintiffs argue
  that the trial court erred in ruling that (1) they were precluded from
  recovering economic losses pursuant to their products liability claims, and
  (2) their warranty claims were brought outside the limitations period.

       We first consider the warranty claims.  Plaintiffs argue that the
  recall notice sent to them in October 1994 should be construed as a
  warranty and a new promise reviving prior warranties.

 

  In plaintiffs' view, the post-sale representations and promise to repair
  contained in the notice modified the original contract for the purchase of
  their motor home, and thus tolled the statute of limitations for their
  warranty claims.

       We find no merit to these arguments.  By the time that Deere and
  Company issued the recall notice in October 1994, more than five years had
  passed since plaintiffs purchased the Winnebago, and thus the statute of
  limitations had already run on their warranty claims.  See 9A V.S.A. §
  2-725(1), (2) (action for breach of contract for sale must be commenced
  within four years after cause of action has accrued; breach-of-warranty
  action accrues upon tender of delivery of goods).  The recall notice could
  not have revived warranties that were no longer actionable.  Nor did the
  recall notice, standing alone, expressly or impliedly make any warranties
  regarding the Winnebago; rather, it merely promised to install a wiring
  improvement parts kit.

       We now turn to plaintiffs' products liability claims.  This Court has
  adopted the doctrine of strict products liability as embodied in
  Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.  See Zaleskie v. Joyce, 133 Vt. 150,
  155,