Forbes v. Gen. Motors Corp.
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00902-SCT Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00902-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-30-2008 Opinion Author: Lamar, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Breach of warranty - Statute of limitations - Section 75-2-725 - Future performance Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Diaz, P.J., Easley and Graves, JJ., without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-23-2007 Appealed from: MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: R. I. Prichard, III Disposition: The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of General Motors. Case Number: 2001-0260 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | HOYT FORBES AND HILDA FORBES |
WAYNE DOWDY; ANGELA YLONA COCKERHAM |
||
| Appellee: | GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION | PAUL V. CASSISA, JR.; GENE D. BERRY |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Breach of warranty - Statute of limitations - Section 75-2-725 - Future performance |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mrs. Forbes was driving her 1992 model Oldsmobile Delta 88 when she struck the rear-end of the vehicle in front of her. The air bag system of the vehicle failed to deploy, and the lap harness seatbelt system failed to restrain Mrs. Forbes’s movement. As a result of the collision, Mrs. Forbes suffered severe and permanent brain injuries. The Forbeses filed a lawsuit on December 7, 2000. They filed an amended complaint on December 15, 2000, adding GM as an additional defendant. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ case in chief, GM moved for a directed verdict, and the plaintiffs confessed certain portions of the motion. The judge then granted the remainder of GM’s motion for a directed verdict, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that their damages were proximately caused by an unreasonably dangerous and defective condition of the air bag system due to GM’s breach of an express warranty or other express factual representation upon which the plaintiffs justifiably relied in using the product. The Forbeses appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. However, on writ of certiorari, the case was reversed and remanded. Following the remand to the trial court, GM filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs’ claims for breach of warranty were barred by the six-year statute of limitations. The trial court granted GM’s motion. The Forbeses appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The trial court granted GM’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the claim for breach of express warranty was barred by the statute of limitations, because delivery of the automobile was made more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint. The Forbeses purchased the automobile in either 1991 or 1992. The accident occurred on December 15, 1997. The Forbeses subsequently filed suit on December 7, 2000. The plain language of section 75-2-725 provides that a cause of action for breach of warranty accrues when tender of delivery of goods is made. With regard to breach-of-warranty claims against automobile manufacturers, the statute of limitations bars breach of warranty claims six years from the date of delivery of the product. Because the Forbeses did not file a complaint within six years of delivery of the vehicle, this action is procedurally barred by the six-year statute of limitations, unless the Forbeses can show that an exception applies. The Forbeses argue that the warranty contained in the manual explicitly extends to future performance of the product, and therefore, the cause of action did not accrue until the breach was or should have been discovered, i.e., the date of the accident, December 15, 1997. Section 75-2-725 in unmistakable language provides that in order for a warranty of this type to extend beyond six years after the date of tender of delivery, such warranty must explicitly relate to future performance of the goods. GM’s owner’s manual did not contain an explicit reference to the future performance of the automobile’s air bags. GM never promised a “lifetime guarantee” or set a specific length of time in which the automobile would be covered by the warranty. To allow this claim to fall under the future-performance exception would be in direct contradiction to the statute. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
