Opinion ID: 2228031
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: reconditioned or refurbished

Text: Divis first claims that Clark and Clarklift should be held liable because the statute of repose began anew when Clarklift reconditioned and refurbished the forklift, which Clark approved and authorized. Divis essentially claims that a piece of machinery which has been refurbished becomes a new product for purposes of a product liability action, recommencing the statute of repose from the date of the new product's sale. Courts have employed a two-part test to determine whether the statute of repose should recommence when a product has been refurbished. First, courts must determine whether the refurbishing resulted in a new product. To determine whether the product should be considered new, courts must inquire whether the refurbishing has lengthened the product's useful life beyond what was contemplated when the product was first sold. Second, if the product is considered new, the suit will still be time barred unless the refurbishing was defective and proximately caused the injury. See, e.g., Whitaker v. T.J. Snow Co., Inc., 953 F.Supp. 1034 (N.D.Ind.1997); Johnson v. Kempler Industries, Inc., 677 N.E.2d 531 (Ind.App. 1997); Fritchie v. Alumax Inc., 931 F.Supp. 662 (D.Neb.1996); Richardson v. Gallo Equipment Co., 990 F.2d 330 (7th Cir.1993); Hinds v. CompAir Kellogg, 776 F.Supp. 1102 (E.D.Va.1991); Reese v. National Mine Service Co., 672 F.Supp. 1116 (S.D.Ill.1987).