Kenworth of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Seventy-Seven Limited, 134 N.E.3d 370

Buyers (Seventy-Seven Ltd. and affiliates) purchased 40 Kenworth T800 dump trucks from Sellers (Kenworth/PACCAR/Kenworth of Indianapolis) under a written Warranty Agreement.
The Warranty promised the trucks "will be free from defects in materials and workmanship" for specified time/mileage and limited legal actions to one year from accrual.
Trucks vibrated excessively shortly after delivery (2005–2006); Sellers attempted multiple repairs, installed different engine mounts, extended the base warranty to 4 years/250,000 miles, and promised mounts would be replaced while Buyers owned the trucks.
Buyers stopped payments and sued in October 2010 alleging breach of warranty and related claims; Sellers moved for summary judgment arguing claims accrued at delivery and were time-barred.
Trial court denied summary judgment, finding (1) the warranty was a future-performance warranty so accrual follows discovery, and (2) Sellers’ conduct could equitably toll the one-year limitation; Supreme Court affirms denial and remands because genuine factual disputes remain.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Warranty is a future-performance warranty so accrual follows discovery	Warranty explicitly guarantees the trucks will be defect-free for the stated time; accrual occurs when breach is discovered	Warranty is only a repair/replacement remedy; accrual occurred at delivery when vibration first appeared	Warranty is an express future-performance warranty (explicit promise re: goods + specified future time); accrual follows discovery rule, not automatically delivery
Whether Sellers’ repair efforts/assurances tolled the one-year limitations via equitable estoppel	Sellers’ repeated repairs, warranty extension, and promises to continue fixing lulled Buyers into inaction and can toll the limitation	Ludwig v. Ford means repair attempts do not toll limitations; Sellers were simply performing contractual duties	Equitable estoppel can toll a contractual limitations period when a party’s affirmative conduct prevents inquiry, misleads, or eludes investigation; whether tolling occurred here is a factual question for trial (Ludwig is fact-specific and not controlling as a broad rule)

Ludwig v. Ford Motor Co., 510 N.E.2d 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (held seller’s repair efforts did not toll limitations on facts before that court)
Perryman v. Motorist Mut. Ins. Co., 846 N.E.2d 683 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (Indiana discovery rule: accrual when party knows or using diligence could discover breach)
Paramo v. Edwards, 563 N.E.2d 595 (Ind. 1990) (equitable estoppel requires affirmative conduct that prevents inquiry, eludes investigation, or misleads)
R.W. Murray Co. v. Shatterproof Glass Corp., 697 F.2d 818 (6th Cir. 1983) (sets test: future-performance warranty must unambiguously promise goods’ future performance for a specific period)
Stumler v. Ferry-Morse Seed Co., 644 F.2d 667 (7th Cir. 1981) (implied warranties generally cannot be future-performance warranties)
Grand Island Exp. v. Timpte Indus., Inc., 28 F.3d 73 (8th Cir. 1994) (finding future-performance warranty where contract specified defect-free period)
Cosman v. Ford Motor Co., 674 N.E.2d 61 (Ill. Ct. App. 1996) (distinguishes seller’s repair promise from a warranty that the goods themselves will perform in the future)
LTL Acres Ltd. P’ship v. Butler Mfg. Co., 136 A.3d 682 (Del. 2016) (language of warranty must plainly warrant future performance to invoke discovery rule)