Court Opinion

ID: 9396426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 16:08:16.103622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:16.914991
License: Public Domain

J-A11040-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    ROCK INVESTCO, L.P. (F/K/A ROCK            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    INVESTCO, L.L.C.)                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 599 WDA 2022
    LM WIND POWER BLADES (USA),                :
    INC.                                       :

                  Appeal from the Order Entered April 19, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Civil Division at No(s):
                               No. 2021-000111

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                            FILED: MAY 22, 2023

        Rock Investco, L.P. (Rock Investco) appeals from the order of the Court

of Common Pleas of Cambria County (trial court) granting summary judgment

in favor of LM Wind Power Blades (USA), Inc. (LM Wind). We affirm.

        In 2017, Rock Investco bought a wind farm in Cambria County. The

wind farm had 30 turbines.             During an inspection in 2019, inspectors

discovered that one of the turbines had a cracked blade. The defective blade

was produced by LM Wind and had been installed in 2013 before Rock Investco

became owners of the wind farm.

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A11040-23

      In April 2021, Rock Investco filed a three-count complaint against LM

Wind alleging (1) breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness,

(2) strict liability, and (3) negligence. After the strict liability and negligence

counts were dismissed on preliminary objections, LM Wind moved for

summary judgment on the remaining implied warranties claim.              LM Wind

argued that the claim was time-barred under the applicable four-year statute

of limitations found at Section 2725 of the Uniform Commercial Code – Sales,

which provides:

      (a) General rule.--An action for breach of any contract for sale
      must be commenced within four years after the cause of action
      has accrued. By the original agreement the parties may reduce
      the period of limitation to not less than one year but may not
      extend it.

      (b) Accrual of cause of action.--A cause of action accrues when
      the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party’s lack of
      knowledge of the breach. A breach of warranty occurs when
      tender of delivery is made, except that where a warranty explicitly
      extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the
      breach must await the time of such performance the cause of
      action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered.

13 Pa.C.S. § 2725(a)-(b).

      Under § 2725, LM Wind argued, Rock Investco’s breach of implied

warranties claim accrued in 2013 when the defective blade was installed and

not when the crack was discovered in 2019.          For support, LM Wind cited

Nationwide Ins. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 625 A.2d 1172 (Pa. 1993).

In Nationwide, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the exception

provided under § 2725(b) was inapplicable to implied warranty claims because

                                       -2-
J-A11040-23

implied warranties do not explicitly extend to future performance.         Id. at

1178. In its response, Rock Investco acknowledged Nationwide but urged

the trial court to follow our Supreme Court’s prior decision in Cucchi v.

Rollins Protective Services Co., 574 A.2d 565 (Pa. 1990), where, in the

opinion announcing the judgment of the court, a plurality observed that “the

better view is that warranties explicitly extending to future performance may

be both express and implied by content and circumstances sufficiently specific

as to unequivocally refer to future performance.” Id. at 573.

       After argument on the motion, the trial court granted summary

judgment in favor of LM Wind.           Rock Investco filed a timely appeal and a

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement alleging that the trial court erred in granting

summary judgment before Rock Investco could conduct discovery into

whether the exception under § 2725(b) would be applicable to its implied

warranty claim.      Rock Investco reasserts the same argument in its brief,

asserting, among other things, that our Supreme Court’s decision in

Nationwide did not close the door on § 2725(b) applying to breach of implied

warranty claims. We disagree.1

____________________________________________

1 Our standard of review of an order granting or denying summary judgment
is well-settled:

       We view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
       party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of
       material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Only
       where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -3-
J-A11040-23

       In Nationwide, the plaintiff sued for breach of a car warranty providing

that the dealer would make necessary repairs for 12 months or 12,000 miles,

whichever came first. The plaintiff sued the dealer for breach of express and

implied warranties within four years of discovering the defect but not within

four years of the tender of delivery. As a result, the timeliness of plaintiff’s

claims hinged on whether they fell under the exception under § 2725(b).

Finding that the express warranty did not “explicitly extend to future

performance of the goods,” the trial court dismissed the actions because it

deemed plaintiff’s action as accruing on the date of delivery.          After we

affirmed, the Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal to address whether

the warranties explicitly extended to future performance of the vehicle, in

which case the action was timely filed, or whether the general rule regarding

breach of warranty applied and the cause of action accrued upon tender of

delivery, thus making the action untimely.

____________________________________________

       clear that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter
       of law will summary judgment be entered. Our scope of review of
       a trial court’s order granting or denying summary judgment is
       plenary, and our standard of review is clear: the trial court’s order
       will be reversed only where it is established that the court
       committed an error of law or abused its discretion.

Siciliano v. Mueller, 149 A.3d 863, 864 (Pa. Super. 2016). Moreover, the
standard of review for issues involving the interpretation of a statute of
limitations is de novo and the scope of review is plenary. See Erie Ins.
Exchange v. Bristol, 643 Pa. 709, 174 A.3d 578, 585 n.13 (2017).

                                           -4-
J-A11040-23

        Before addressing the claims, the Nationwide Court explained the

reasoning for why warranty actions generally have a four-year statute of

limitations that begins running on the date of delivery.

        In the ordinary case, a breach of warranty action accrues on, and
        suit must be filed within four years of, the date the seller tenders
        delivery of the goods, even if the breach is not apparent until after
        delivery has been tendered. Section 2725 sets tender of delivery
        as the point at which the cause of action accrues because the
        section “presumes that all warranties, express or implied, relate
        only to the condition of the goods at the time of sale.” Max E.
        Klinger, The Concept of Warranty Duration: A Tangled Web, 89
        Dick.L.Rev. 935, 939 (1985) (hereinafter, “A Tangled Web”).
        Such warranties are breached, if at all, when the goods are
        delivered but do not meet that standard. Of course, the deficiency
        contained in the goods may not be discovered by the buyer within
        four years of delivery. However,

          [i]n the usual circumstances, ..., defects are apt to surface
          within that time period, and the few odd situations where this
          is not the case, resulting in hardship to the buyer, are thought
          to be outweighed by the commercial benefit derived by
          allowing the parties to destroy records with reasonable
          promptness.

        William D. Hawkland, Uniform Commercial Code Series § 2-
        725:02, at 480 (1984).       See 13 Pa.C.S. § 2725, Uniform
        Commercial Code Comment (four year period “is most appropriate
        to modern business practice” because it “is within the normal
        commercial record keeping period”). Thus, in breach of warranty
        cases the four-year statute of limitations is essentially a statute
        of repose.[2] (Emphasis added).
____________________________________________

2   As explained by our Supreme Court:

        A statute of repose is defined as a “statute barring any suit that is
        brought after a specified time since the defendant acted (such as
        by designing or manufacturing a product), even if this period ends
        before the plaintiff has suffered a resulting injury.” BLACK'S LAW
        DICTIONARY 1451 (8th ed. 2004). Thus,
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -5-
J-A11040-23

Nationwide, 625 A.2d at 1174-75 (emphasis added).

       With this in mind, the Nationwide Court first addressed whether a car’s

express warranty “explicitly” extends to future performance, thus bringing it

within the grasp of § 2725’s discovery exception. Finding that the express

warranty did fall under the exception, the Court concluded that the cause of

action for breach of express warranty was timely filed. Id. at 1178.

       It, however, could not conclude the same about the plaintiff’s claim for

breach    of    implied    warranties      because   the   implied   warranties   of

merchantability and fitness did not extend to the future performance of the

____________________________________________

         A statute of repose ... limits the time within which an action
         may be brought and is not related to the accrual of any cause
         of action; the injury need not have occurred, much less have
         been discovered. Unlike an ordinary statute of limitations
         which begins running upon accrual of the claim, the period
         contained in a statute of repose begins when a specific event
         occurs, regardless of whether a cause of action has accrued
         or whether any injury has resulted.

       City of McKeesport v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
       (Miletti), 746 A.2d 87, 91 (2000) [(Nigro, J., dissenting)]
       (citations and emphasis omitted). While a statute of limitations
       merely bars a party’s right to a remedy, a statute of repose
       completely abolishes and eliminates a party’s cause of action.
       Noll v. Harrisburg Area YMCA, 537 Pa. 274, 281, 643 A.2d 81,
       84 (1994).

Eleanor Abrams, Executrix of the Estate of Kenneth Abrams v. Pneumo
Abex Corporation, 981 A.2d 198, 211 (Pa. 2009) (citations shortened).

                                           -6-
J-A11040-23

car. In so doing, the Court first looked at the language of the warranty and

found that it did not create any implied warranties.

      The warranty contains the following language: “ANY IMPLIED
      WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
      PARTICULAR PURPOSE APPLICABLE TO THIS CAR IS LIMITED IN
      DURATION TO THE DURATION OF THIS WRITTEN WARRANTY.”
      We do not read this language as explicitly extending the terms of
      any implied warranties, because the document states that any
      implied warranties are of a duration no longer than that of the
      express warranty and not that they are of a duration equal to that
      of the express warranty. The quoted language does not create
      implied warranties, because such warranties are created not by
      contract language but by operation of law in certain
      circumstances. See 13 Pa.C.S. §§ 2314 and 2315. The legal
      effect of the quoted language is merely to limit the protection that
      the law might otherwise impose. Therefore, it cannot be read as
      the type of language that “explicitly extends to future
      performance” for purposes of § 2725(b)….

Nationwide, supra at 1178.

      Besides the language of the warranty, the Court also noted that several

other courts have concluded implied warranties cannot “explicitly” extend to

future performance.

      In addition, the great weight of authority takes the position that
      an implied warranty, by nature, cannot “explicitly” extend to
      future performance. See, e.g., General Motors Corp. v. Tate,
      257 Ark. 347, 516 S.W.2d 602, 605-606 (1974); City of Carlisle
      v. Fetzer, 381 N.W.2d 627, 629 (Iowa 1986) (collecting cases);
      Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Certainteed Corp., 710 S.W.2d 544,
      546-548 (Tex.1986) (collecting cases); White & Summers,
      Uniform Commercial Code § 11-9, at 478 n. 17 (collecting cases);
      Hawkland, Uniform Commercial Code Series § 2-272 5:02, at 480;
      Anno., What Constitutes Warranty Explicitly Extending to “Future
      Performance” for Purposes of UCC § 2-725(2), 93 A.L.R.3d 690,
      § 2 (collecting cases).

                                     -7-
J-A11040-23

Nationwide, supra at 1178. Accordingly, because the implied warranties did

not explicitly extend to the future performance of the car, the plaintiff’s claims

of breach of implied warranties accrued on the date of delivery and,

consequently, were untimely. Id.

      A few years later, this Court addressed a similar scenario as that

presented in Nationwide. In Antz v. GAF Materials Corp., 719 A.2d 758

(Pa. Super. 1998), the plaintiff installed roof shingles on his new home in

1989. About four years later, the shingles showed signs of defects. As a

result, in 1996, the plaintiff sued the manufacturer of the shingles for breaches

of express warranty, warranty of merchantability and warranty of fitness for

a particular purpose. After the trial court denied partial summary judgment,

the parties submitted the matter to the trial court based on stipulated facts.

The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him damages,

following which the manufacturer appealed to this Court.

      On appeal, we recognized that the issue was whether the plaintiff’s

claims were barred by the statute of limitations since they were filed well

beyond the general four-year limitations period for breach of warranty claims

provided under § 2725. After reviewing § 2725, we explained that claims of

breach of implied warranties, after Nationwide, cannot explicitly extend to

future performance.

      Section 2725(a) permits an action to be brought within four years
      from tender of delivery of the goods. The shingles were delivered
      on August 1, 1989. The complaint was not filed until December
      15, 1995, well beyond four years. However, the exception

                                      -8-
J-A11040-23

       outlined in § 2725(b) increases the period of limitations where the
       warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods
       and discovery of the breach must await future performance. In
       such instances a cause of action accrues when the breach is or
       should have been discovered.             Implied warranties of
       merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose cannot
       explicitly extend to future performance. Nationwide, 625 A.2d
       at 1178.      Therefore, claims for such warranties must be
       commenced within four years from tender of delivery.

Antz, supra at 760 (internal citation altered).

       Based on Nationwide, this Court concluded that the plaintiff’s claims

for breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a

particular purpose were time-barred.           In so concluding, we found that the

plaintiff’s claims “were not filed within four years after tender of delivery of

the shingles and do not meet the exception under § 2725(b) as they cannot

relate to future performance.” Id. (citing Nationwide, supra).3

       After Antz, Pennsylvania federal courts have consistently applied

Nationwide and Antz in holding that the discovery exception under

§ 2725(b) do not apply to implied warranties. See, e.g., Allstate Prop. &

Cas. Ins. Co. v. Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc., 2022 WL 906049, at

*11 (M.D. Pa. 2022) (finding implied warranty claim time-barred because

____________________________________________

3 While finding the plaintiff’s claims for breach of implied warranties time-
barred, this Court ultimately affirmed the judgment by finding that the
plaintiff’s damages were based on his claim for breach of express warranty,
which we found was not time-barred and contained an unconscionable
damages limitation barring recovery for labor costs of repair for the defective
shingles. Antz, supra at 760-63.

                                           -9-
J-A11040-23

“Pennsylvania courts hold implied warranties do not apply to the future

performance of goods and, therefore, accrue on tender of delivery”); Vullings

v. Bryant Heating & Cooling Systems, 2019 WL 687881, at *3 (E.D. Pa.

2019) (finding plaintiff’s implied warranty claim time-barred because it

accrued in 2005 when he purchased the defective furnace); Cooper-Booth

Trans. Co., L.P. v. Daimler Trucks of N. Am., LLC, 2018 WL 1940527, at

*3 (E.D. 2018) (finding implied warranty claims accrued upon tender of

delivery in 2013 because Nationwide “implied warranties of merchantability

and fitness for a particular purpose do not explicitly extend to future

performance and the Section 2725(b) exception does not apply”); Red Rose

Transit Auth. v. N. Am. Bus Indus., 2013 WL 180201, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Jan.

16, 2013) (holding that claim of breach of implied warranty was untimely

because implied warranties are breached at the time of delivery); McCracken

v. Ford Motor Co., 588 F.Supp.2d 635,642 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (holding warranty

of merchantability claim time-barred under Nationwide because claim

expired in 2003 four years after plaintiff purchased car); Busche v. Monaco

Coach Corp., 2006 WL 3302477, at *4 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (dismissing implied

warranty claims as untimely because they accrued on the date tender of

delivery was made); Floyd v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 159

F.Supp.2d 823, 83 (W.D. Pa. 2011) (finding breach of implied warranty time-

barred because implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a

particular purpose cannot explicitly extend to future performance).

                                   - 10 -
J-A11040-23

     On appeal, Rock Investco asserts that the trial court should have allowed

it more time to conduct discovery to determine whether its breach of implied

warranties claim accrued on the date of discovering the defect in 2019 rather

than the date of tender of delivery in 2013.        “[P]arties must be given

reasonable time to complete discovery before a trial court entertains any

motion for summary judgment[.]”       Anthony Biddle Contractors, Inc. v.

Preet Allied Am. St., LP, 28 A.3d 916, 928 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation and

emphasis omitted). However, “[s]ummary judgment may be entered prior to

the completion of discovery in matters where additional discovery would not

aid in the establishment of any material fact. Thus, the question is whether

additional discovery would have aided in the establishment of any material

fact.” Manzetti v. Mercy Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 776 A.2d 938, 950-51 (Pa.

Super. 2001) (citation omitted).

     As shown by our discussion above, discovery would have been fruitless

under these circumstances because implied warranties cannot explicitly

extend   to   future   performance   under    Nationwide   and   Antz.   See

Nationwide, supra at 1178; Antz, supra at 760. We, thus, find no error in

the trial court granting summary judgment when it did because Rock

Investco’s breach of implied warranties claim was untimely under § 2725

which, as was recognized in Nationwide, acts as a statute of repose that

begins running regardless of when the injury or defect is discovered.

                                     - 11 -
J-A11040-23

      Rock Investco nonetheless argues that this Court should ignore

Nationwide and rely on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in

Cucchi for the proposition that claims of breach of implied warranties may,

depending on the circumstances and on what was said or represented at the

time the transaction was entered into, “explicitly” extend to future

performance.    However, as the trial court aptly explained, Cucchi, which

predates Nationwide and Antz, is of no precedential value in this case.

             First, Cucchi is a plurality decision of the Superior Court and
      its precedential value has been limited by our Supreme Court to
      its facts. Keblish v. Thomas Equip., Ltd., 660 A.2d 38, 40 n.1
      (1995). Second, the facts in Cucchi are readily distinguishable
      from the facts here. In Cucchi, a homeowner entered into a lease
      agreement for a burglar alarm that required a one-time
      installation fee and an ongoing monthly fee for service and
      maintenance related to the system. Cucchi, 574 A.2d 565, 566.
      The Cucchi plurality determined that the ongoing agreement for
      service and maintenance constituted an explicit agreement for
      future performance related to the burglar alarm such that the
      section 2725(b) exception was applicable and thus the SOL did
      not begin to run until the breach was discovered. Id. at 574-75.

             Here, there is no evidence that an agreement for future
      performance existed either in the form of a written agreement or
      by LM Wind having performed any future actions related to the
      blade or other blades installed at the wind farm after the initial
      installation….

Trial Court Opinion, 7/12/22, at 6-7.

      Finding this discussion persuasive, we agree with the trial court and

likewise find Rock Investco’s attempts to invoke Cucchi as precedential or

persuasive authority unavailing. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did

                                     - 12 -
J-A11040-23

not err in granting summary judgment in favor of LM Wind and dismissing

count one of Rock Investco’s complaint alleging breach of implied warranties.4

       Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/22/2023

____________________________________________

4 Because we find that Rock Investco’s claim of breach of implied warranties
was time-barred, we need not address the trial court’s additional finding that
Rock Investco had sufficient time to conduct discovery but failed to diligently
conduct discovery. See Dockery v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosps., Inc.,
253 A.3d 716, 721 (Pa. Super. 2021) (stating “this Court is not bound by the
reasoning of the trial court, and we may affirm the trial court on any valid
basis”) (citation omitted).

                                          - 13 -