129 F.4th 1066
8th Cir.2025Background
- Vernon Holland, an employee at Bryce Corporation’s Searcy, Arkansas manufacturing plant, died from injuries suffered while addressing a miswound film inside an industrial laminator rewinder.
- The rewinder had been delivered, installed, integrated, and commissioned by Bobst Group North America, Inc. (Bobst NA) in 2010.
- Bobst Italia, not a party here, designed and manufactured the rewinder; Bobst NA was responsible for delivery, installation, and commissioning.
- Holland’s estate, represented by Robert Cearley, brought a wrongful death suit against Bobst NA with multiple tort claims.
- The district court granted Bobst NA summary judgment, holding that the action was time-barred under Arkansas's statute of repose for construction-related claims.
- Cearley appealed the summary judgment ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of statute of repose to Bobst NA’s actions | Bobst NA is not protected—their work didn’t involve individual expertise; rewinder is a mass-produced good. | Statute covers Bobst NA—they installed and commissioned an improvement to realty. | Statute of repose applies to Bobst NA’s installation work. |
| Whether rewinder is an 'improvement to real property' | Rewinder is a chattel, not a permanent fixture or improvement. | Machinery is integrated, long-term, affixed, and improves realty. | Rewinder is an improvement to real property under the statute. |
| Application of Brown v. Overhead Door Corp. | Brown says supplier/manufacturer of mass-produced goods not protected by statute. | Brown distinguishable; Bobst NA installed, didn’t manufacture. | Brown is inapposite; Bobst NA’s installation is covered. |
| Timeliness of suit under statute of repose | Suit not time-barred since Bobst NA doesn't qualify for statute protection. | Suit barred—filed more than four years after installation. | Suit is untimely; barred by statute of repose. |
Key Cases Cited
- Star City Sch. Dist. v. ACI Bldg. Sys., LLC, 844 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2017) (Explains effect and purpose of Arkansas's statute of repose for construction claims)
- 65th Ctr., Inc. v. Copeland, 825 S.W.2d 574 (Ark. 1992) (Company that constructed improvements to real property is within statute of repose)
- Cherokee Carpet Mills, Inc. v. Manly Jail Works, Inc., 521 S.W.2d 528 (Ark. 1975) (Machinery integrated into factory operations is considered an improvement to realty)
- Carter v. Hartenstein, 455 S.W.2d 918 (Ark. 1979) (Installer of elevator in building covered by statute of repose for improvements to real property)