276 P.3d 773
Kan. Ct. App.2012Background
- Golden purchased Cerinate veneers manufactured by Den-Mat and installed by Dr. Gill; veneers allegedly discolor, stain, or later detach; she sued under UCC implied warranties, KCPA, and theories of deceptive/unconscionable practices; district court granted summary judgment for Den-Mat and Gill; court reverses on most issues but affirms summary judgment on one KCPA claim involving limitations; case involves mixed goods/services transaction and a dental cosmetic product not typically bound by straightforward UCC analysis.
- Brochure and advertising portrayed Cerinate veneers as durable with no discoloration; Golden relied on these representations in choosing veneers; Dr. Gill’s involvement included ordering, delivering, applying veneers, and issuing a warranty card; Golden paid Dr. Gill (payment path unclear) and veneers were delivered January 10, 2005 with subsequent repairs at no cost.
- Golden sought recovery for costs of veneers, replacements, and noneconomic damages for inconvenience and pain; district court treated claims as torts and applied short statutes of limitations; appeal contends claims arise under UCC and KCPA with different limitations and notice requirements.
- Court undertook analysis of UCC coverage for mixed contracts, predominant purpose test, and whether UCC warranties were implicated; addressed KCPA scope, including deceptive acts and unconscionable practices and the effect of warranty limitations; concluded material facts remain for trial on core issues.
- Court remanded for trial on most UCC and KCPA claims, affirming summary judgment only as to one KCPA claim regarding improper limitations of warranties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UCC claims and KCPA claims were time-barred | Golden's claims under UCC and KCPA arose within applicable periods | Den-Mat and Gill argued notice and limitations barred claims | Not barred; proper limitations analysis required |
| Whether the UCC applies to the transaction as a mixed goods/services contract | Predominant purpose favors UCC coverage for goods (veneers) | Gill argues transaction is primarily professional services | Issue for jury; not per se excluded from UCC scope |
| Whether the KCPA claims survive on deceptive acts and unconscionable limitations | Representations deceptive; warranty limitation violative of KCPA | Limitations may be governed by K.S.A. 50-639; unconscionability debated | KCPA claims generally viable; proper under 50-639 for limitations; unconscionability claim is not sustained as a matter of law |
| Whether there was breach of express and implied warranties under UCC | Warranties regarding non-discoloration, durability, and fitness for purpose breached | Summary judgment warranted; no breach shown as a matter of law | Material facts remain; issues of breach for trial with jury |
| Whether Dr. Gill is subject to KPLA or responsible for warranty limitations | Gill involved in sale and application; KPLA applicability unclear | Gill argues KPLA excludes health care providers | KPLA not applicable; debate on warranty limitations under KCPA remains for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Care Display, Inc. v. Didde-Glaser, Inc., 225 Kan. 232 (Kan. 1979) (predominant purpose test for mixed contracts under UCC)
- Wachter Management Co. v. Dexter & Chaney, Inc., 282 Kan. 365 (Kan. 2006) (predominant purpose approach in mixed contracts)
- Systems Design v. Kansas City P.O. Employees Credit Union, 14 Kan.App.2d 266 (Kan. App. 1990) (application of predominant purpose in mixed contracts)
- Stair v. Gaylord, 232 Kan. 765 (Kan. 1983) (limits on implied warranties; 50-639 analysis)
- Dale v. King Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 234 Kan. 840 (Kan. 1984) (implied warranty of merchantability; durability standard for goods)
- Black v. Don Schmid Motors, 232 Kan. 458 (Kan. 1983) (express warranty; successor liability and seller bound to warranty)
- Smith v. Stewart, 233 Kan. 904 (Kan. 1983) (notice under UCC 2-607; consumer context)