Opinion ID: 1834681
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether a Negligent Recall Claim is Barred by Section 614.1(11).

Text: With this issue, Mapco tries to salvage a tort action by splitting its negligence claim in two. Mapco argues there are two distinct torts: one is the negligent design and manufacture of the control valve and the other is the subsequent negligent recall. Even if its first claim is barred by section 614.1(11), Mapco insists its negligent recall claim is not. Assuming, without deciding, that there is such a theory as negligent recall, section 614.1(11) bars that claim too. Section 614.1(11) bars all actions arising out of the unsafe or defective condition of an improvement to real property. The control valve on the Krull's furnace was the allegedly unsafe or defective condition. The fifteen-year repose period begins to run with the act or omission of the defendant alleged in the action to have been the cause of the injury. Mapco alleged that Honeywell's negligent design and manufacture of the valve caused the damages. Without such a defect involving the valve, the negligent recall claim would never have arisen. The claims arise from the same alleged breach of duty. So the negligent recall claim necessarily falls within the bar of the statute. Cf. Dague v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 275 Ind. 520, 527, 418 N.E.2d 207, 212 (1981) (products liability statute of repose applied to negligent failure to warn claim because the claim resulted from the manufacture, construction or design of the product). That brings us to the last issue.