Kornfeind, W. v. New Werner Holding, Aplt.
280 A.3d 918
Pa.2022Background:
- In 2013 in Illinois, William Kornfeind fell from a 28-foot extension ladder and suffered catastrophic injuries; the ladder was manufactured in 1995.
- Kornfeind sued in Pennsylvania in 2015 (praecipe), later amending his complaint to assert product‑liability claims against New Werner (successor to the manufacturer) and Home Depot (seller).
- Illinois had a ten‑year statute of repose for product liability applicable to initial purchasers; if the ladder was purchased by 12/31/1999, Illinois repose would bar suit filed in 2015.
- New Werner and Home Depot moved for summary judgment arguing Pennsylvania’s borrowing statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5521, requires applying the foreign (Illinois) statute of repose.
- The trial court denied summary judgment, the Superior Court affirmed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Section 5521’s “period of limitation” includes foreign statutes of repose.
- The Supreme Court held Section 5521 borrows only foreign statutes of limitation (tied to accrual), not statutes of repose (which extinguish substantive rights), and affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of summary judgment.
Issues:
| Issue | Kornfeind (Plaintiff) | New Werner (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the phrase “period of limitation” in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5521 includes foreign statutes of repose | Term tied to accrual and the statute’s short title (“Statute of Limitations”) shows it applies only to statutes of limitation | Plain text covers any limitations period; borrowing statute should include foreign repose to prevent forum shopping | Court: “period of limitation” refers only to statutes of limitation (procedural, accrual‑based), not statutes of repose (substantive, defendant‑focused); affirmed Superior Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Consolidated Grain & Barge Co. v. Structural Sys., Inc., 212 P.3d 1168 (Okla. 2009) (Oklahoma supreme court holding the uniform borrowing statute does not reach statutes of repose)
- Dubose v. Quinlan, 173 A.3d 634 (Pa. 2017) (explaining statutes of repose run from defendant’s last culpable act and are not accrual‑based)
- CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 573 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2014) (describing the nature and effect of statutes of repose)
- Vargo v. Koppers Co., Inc., Eng’g & Constr. Div., 715 A.2d 423 (Pa. 1998) (statutes of limitation begin to run at claim accrual)
- Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Korach), 883 A.2d 579 (Pa. 2005) (distinguishing procedural statutes of limitation from substantive statutes of repose)
- MERSCORP, Inc. v. Del. County, 207 A.3d 855 (Pa. 2019) (statutory interpretation framework; de novo review)