Products Liability Law Reporter

The Indiana Supreme Court held that the state’s products liability statute of repose may not be extended by a product’s post-sale repair or refurbishment.

Bradley Estabrook was injured in 2014 while he was working on his employer’s machine. The employer had purchased the machine new from Mazak Corp., which delivered it in 2003. Estabrook sued Mazak for products liability in Indiana federal court in 2016, alleging design defect. The plaintiff proposed adopting a “new product” exception to the applicable repose statute. The district court certified the question of whether the state’s statute of repose, as codified in Ind. Code §34-20-3-1(b), can be extended by the post-sale repair or refurbishment of the product.

Answering in the negative, the Indiana Supreme Court noted that under §34-20-3-1(b), absent an exception for asbestos-related actions, a products liability lawsuit must be commenced within two years after a cause of action accrues or within 10 years after the product is delivered to the initial consumer or customer. The court found that the statutory language is straightforward and contains just one exception, which does not relate to products that are repaired or refurbished. Had the legislature wanted to authorize restarting the limitations period for a product that was transformed after its initial delivery, it would have done so, the court said, adding that a court’s role is to interpret a statute as enacted by the legislature.

Consequently, the court held that §34-20-3-1(b) is a repose statute that cannot be extended based on the post-delivery repair or refurbishment of a manufacturer.

Citation: Estabrook v. Mazak Corp., 2020 WL 993422 (Ind. Mar. 2, 2020).