122 F.4th 312
8th Cir.2024Background
- After a 2021 winter storm, roofs on chicken houses at ten Arkansas poultry farms collapsed.
- Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Norfolk), the insurer, paid over $4.7 million in indemnity and brought claims against Rogers Manufacturing Corporation (Rogers), the manufacturer of the roof trusses.
- Norfolk alleged strict product liability, negligence, and breach of warranties against Rogers.
- Rogers moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), asserting claims were barred by Arkansas’s statute of repose, arguing they designed the trusses per customer specifications.
- The district court granted dismissal, finding the claims were time-barred; Norfolk appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Arkansas statute of repose | Rogers is a manufacturer of standard goods, not covered by the statute of repose | Rogers designed the trusses for this project, so is covered | Dismissal improper at this stage; plausible inference statute does not apply |
| Whether complaint states a plausible claim | Complaint allows inference trusses are standardized and not custom | "Design" work means statute of repose clearly applies | Complaint plausibly supports standardized goods theory |
| Meaning of "designed" in complaint | "Designed" doesn’t necessarily mean custom-made for specific project | Word “designed” covers Rogers under the statute | Not resolved on motion to dismiss; multiple plausible readings favor plaintiff |
| Dismissal standard under Rule 12(b)(6) | All reasonable inferences drawn in favor of non-movant | Not disputed | Reversal of dismissal; case proceeds |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets the plausibility pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Star City School District v. ACI Building Systems, LLC, 844 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2017) (statute of repose does not protect manufacturers of standardized goods not involved in installation)
- Hamilton v. Palm, 621 F.3d 816 (8th Cir. 2010) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6); complaint survives if plausible reading supports liability)