Opinion ID: 1233857
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Idaho Statute of Repose

Text: The typical statute of repose enacted in many jurisdictions provides an absolute time limit on claims and causes of action. Idaho's statute differs from the typical statute of repose in that it does not act to absolutely bar an action, but rather establishes a separate affirmative defense which can be rebutted. Idaho's statute contains a useful safe life provision that focuses upon the age of a product, beginning at the time of delivery to the first purchaser or lessee, and a statute of repose that presumes the useful safe life of a product to have expired ten years after delivery of the product. The full text of the section of the statute in question provides as follows: Length of time product sellers are subject to liability.  (1) Useful safe life. (a) Except as provided in subsection (1)(b) hereof, a product seller shall not be subject to liability to a claimant for harm under this chapter if the product seller proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the harm was caused after the product's useful safe life had expired. Useful safe life begins at the time of delivery of the product and extends for the time during which the product would normally be likely to perform or be stored in a safe manner. For the purposes of this chapter, time of delivery means the time of delivery of a product to its first purchaser or lessee who was not engaged in the business of either selling such products or using them as component parts of another product to be sold. (b) A product seller may be subject to liability for harm caused by a product used beyond its useful safe life to the extent that the product seller has expressly warranted the product for a longer period. (2) Statute of repose. (a) Generally. In claims that involve harm caused more than ten (10) years after time of delivery, a presumption arises that the harm was caused after the useful safe life had expired. This presumption may only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. (b) Limitations on statute of repose. 1. If a product seller expressly warrants that its product can be utilized safely for a period longer than ten (10) years, the period of repose, after which the presumption created in subsection (2)(a) hereof arises, shall be extended according to that warranty or promise. 2. The ten (10) year period of repose established in subsection (2)(a) hereof does not apply if the product seller intentionally misrepresents facts about its product, or fraudulently conceals information about it, and that conduct was a substantial cause of the claimant's harm. 3. Nothing contained in subsection (2) of this section shall affect the right of any person found liable under this chapter to seek and obtain contribution or indemnity from any other person who is responsible for harm under this chapter. 4. The ten (10) year period of repose established in subsection (2)(a) hereof shall not apply if the harm was caused by prolonged exposure to a defective product, or if the injury-causing aspect of the product that existed at the time of delivery was not discoverable by an ordinary reasonably prudent person until more than ten (10) years after the time of delivery, or if the harm, caused within ten (10) years after the time of delivery, did not manifest itself until after that time. (3) Statute of limitation. No claim under this chapter may be brought more than two (2) years from the time the cause of action accrued as defined in section 5-219, Idaho Code. (Emphasis added.) The legislative purpose of Idaho's statute of repose was expressly stated in the 1980 Session Laws, ch. 225, p. 499, to provide for the maximum length of time products sellers are subject to liability. [5] The Idaho statute has its origin in the Model Uniform Product Liability Act. Fed. Reg., Vol. 44, No. 211. The model Act was drafted in 1979 by the United States Department of Commerce, and Idaho is one of only three states to have adopted it. The Idaho statute is virtually identical to the model Act except it deleted examples of evidence of useful safe life. [6] Although the examples were deleted, the Idaho statute defines useful safe life as extending ... for the time during which the product would normally be likely to perform ... in a safe manner. I.C. § 6-1403(1)(a). The only other two states which have adopted any version of the model Act are Washington and Kansas. The statutes of all three states, including Idaho, are essentially identical to each other and to the model Act. Washington has a twelve-year presumptive period of repose, and the presumption may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence as compared to Idaho's clear and convincing standard. The Kansas statute is identical to the model Act. The Washington statute was interpreted in Morse v. City of Toppenish, 46 Wash. App. 60, 729 P.2d 638 (1986), rev. den. (1987). In Morse, the plaintiff brought an action against a manufacturer of a diving board for injuries sustained while diving into a pool. The diving board had been purchased and installed in 1969, thirteen years before the accident in 1982. The trial court granted summary judgment for the manufacturer applying the useful safe life portion of the Washington statute. In reversing, the Washington Court of Appeals stated: Here, the Morses provided the affidavit of an expert, Dr. Milton A. Orphan, who indicated the useful safe life of a fourteen-Duraflex diving board was in excess of fifteen to sixteen years of constant use. Daniel Morse's injury occurred less than fourteen years after delivery of the diving board. His claim was brought within three years from discovery of the harm. The affidavit also indicated the diving board was not in constant use, since it was stored during the winter. The Orphan affidavit created a question of fact. Thus, summary judgment based on RCW 4.16.310 must be reversed and the case remanded for trial. The plaintiff will still have the burden of overcoming the useful safe life presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. 729 P.2d at 641-42. There is no further discussion in Morse v. City of Toppenish defining the term useful safe life and although the affidavit of plaintiff's expert expressed an opinion as to the useful safe life of the diving board, the Washington Court of Appeals did not address that issue. There are two cases citing the Kansas statute. In Chamberlain v. Schmutz Mfg. Co., 532 F. Supp. 588 (D.Kan. 1982), the United States District Court denied defendant's motion to amend his answer to add the defense that the Kansas statute limited liability to the useful safe life of the product. The district court denied the motion to amend on the basis that the useful safe life limitation contained in the Kansas statute would not be applied retroactively. In Tomlinson v. Celotex Corp., 244 Kan. 474, 770 P.2d 825 (1989), the Kansas Supreme Court was faced with the question of the limitation of actions relating to asbestos produced and sold by the defendant. One of the issues presented was whether the useful safe life had any application to the claims. The Kansas Supreme Court held that useful safe life did not apply because the statute of repose did not amend other Kansas limitation statutes which specifically applied to asbestos claims. The provisions of I.C. § 6-1403 constitute a statute of repose limiting recovery for which there would otherwise be liability under the product liability statutes. I.C. § 6-1403 is not a statute of limitations, although subsection (3) of the statute does provide a two-year statute of limitations barring any claim which is filed more than two years from the time the cause of action accrued. The statute of limitation portion of I.C. § 6-1403 is not involved in this action. The ten-year period in I.C. § 6-1403 creates a presumption in favor of a manufacturer and shifts the burden of proof to the plaintiff to rebut the presumption. Rule 301 of the Idaho Rules of Evidence provides that statutes may shift the burden of going forward and producing some evidence. Accordingly, there is no defect in the statute as a result of placing the burden on the plaintiff to rebut the presumption. The validity of the statute in question depends upon the statute of repose concept that recovery under the product liability statute is precluded if the harm occurs after the product's useful safe life has expired. The issue presented is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the question of whether the useful safe life of the baler had expired prior to Olsen's injury. The record before the trial court clearly established that the hay baler had been owned by several different individuals, was worn out and had been rebuilt at least twice with parts borrowed from other machinery. Olsen did not establish how his injury occurred and offered absolutely no evidence in the form of affidavit or otherwise to oppose the motion for summary judgment. Prominently absent before the district court was any evidence submitted to rebut the statutory presumption contained in I.C. § 6-1403. Although an expert was hired by Olsen and his deposition is in the record, a careful review of the deposition reveals that the expert had never seen the hay baler in question or one similar to it manufactured by Freeman. Although Olsen's expert witness testified in his deposition that the hay baler did not comply with ANSI standards, that it had a design defect and failed to warn, the record is completely devoid of any evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that the product's useful safe life had expired. Idaho's statute of repose advances a policy of finality in legal relationships and thus furthers the objective of the legislature by providing for the maximum length of time products sellers are subject to liability. The classification established by I.C. § 6-1403 bears a rational relation to the legislative objective. The statute of repose falls within the rational basis test which is generally appropriate to use when reviewing statutes which impact social or economic areas and the classification advances legitimate goals in a rational fashion. Leliefeld v. Johnson, 104 Idaho 357, 659 P.2d 111 (1983). It is logical to infer from the expressed legislative intent of finalizing legal relationships and establishing the maximum length of time manufacturers are subject to liability, that the statute has a reasonably conceived objective, has a rational basis and must be sustained under the equal protection clauses.