533 F. App'x 493
6th Cir.2013Background
- Holbrook appeals district court dismissal of his amended putative class action against Louisiana-Pacific for alleged UCC, OPLA, and ODTPA violations related to Trimboard.
- Trimboard, Louisiana-Pacific's alternative to real wood trim, was installed on Holbrook's property in 2003.
- Holbrook filed suit in 2012, asserting breach of express and implied warranties, and related Ohio statutory claims.
- District court dismissed claims on statute of limitations and other grounds, leading to this appeal.
- The court applies Ohio substantive law due to diversity jurisdiction, reviewing de novo the dismissal and Ohio law interpretations.
- The only claims potentially viable on remand concern a ten-year express warranty; other counts are affirmed or dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the UCC breach claim time-barred? | Holbrook contends warranty claims fall within an explicit warranty extension tolling period. | Louisiana-Pacific asserts limitations expiration after delivery, with no toll allowed for future performance claims unless explicit. | Ten-year express warranty claim timely; other claims barred or dismissed. |
| Does reliance or privity apply to the express warranty claim? | Express warranty is part of the contract; buyer need not prove privity or reliance. | Intent and contract require traditional privity/reliance considerations for warranty claims. | Reliance not required; warranty forms part of the basis of the bargain; claim viable on remand. |
| Can Holbrook recover under the Ohio Products Liability Act based on economic damages alone? | Economic loss from decreased home value and product value constitutes recoverable damages under OPLA. | OPLA requires more than economic damages; physical harm or non-economic harms are needed. | Amended complaint shows only economic damages; OPLA claim dismissed. |
| Does Holbrook have standing to pursue ODTPA claims as a consumer? | ODTPA protects consumer deception; Holbrook is a consumer and should have standing. | Ohio appellate decisions limit standing under ODTPA for consumers in similar contexts. | Holbrook lacks standing; district court’s dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bishop v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 520 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2008) (tolling for statute of limitations when applicable)
- Hoover v. Langston Equip. Assocs., 958 F.2d 742 (6th Cir. 1992) (statute of limitations tolling standards)
- Standard Alliance Indus., Inc. v. Black Clawson Co., 587 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1978) (express warranty extends to future performance when explicit)
- Allis-Chalmers Credit Corp. v. Herbolt, 479 N.E.2d 293 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (written warranty extending to future performance)
- Norcold, Inc. v. Gateway Supply Co., 798 N.E.2d 618 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003) (reliance when express warranty not incorporated)
- Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 537 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio 1989) (economic vs. non-economic damages under product liability framework)
- White v. DePuy, Inc., 718 N.E.2d 450 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998) (definition of product liability damages in Ohio)
- Rogers v. Toni Home Permanent Co., 147 N.E.2d 612 (Ohio 1958) (privity/express warranty concepts under Ohio law)
- Kurczi v. Eli Lilly & Co., 113 F.3d 1426 (6th Cir. 1997) (standing and related issues in product liability)