Timothy Hagan v. Mazda Motor Company of America
690 F. App'x 242
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Timothy J. Hagan sued Mazda North America Operations after his Mazda’s airbags spontaneously deployed, causing injury.
- Mazda moved for summary judgment arguing Texas’s 15-year products-liability statute of repose bars Hagan’s suit.
- The vehicle’s first retail sale was established as December 11, 1999; the repose deadline was December 11, 2014.
- The airbag incident occurred November 21, 2014 (before the repose expired); Hagan filed suit November 2, 2015 (after the 15-year period).
- The district court granted summary judgment for Mazda; the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Texas 15-year statute of repose bars Hagan’s products-liability claim | Hagan argued equitable reasons (and later a California regulation) should excuse or toll the deadline | Mazda argued the suit was filed after the 15-year repose expired and established the sale date and filing date | The court held the repose barred the claim; Mazda established the defense and Hagan failed to raise a fact issue |
| Whether equitable estoppel or tolling applies to overcome the repose | Hagan argued Mazda’s conduct caused the late filing and equitable tolling/estoppel should apply | Mazda argued statutes of repose generally cannot be tolled and no facts show estoppel | The court held equitable tolling/estoppel cannot overcome the statute of repose under controlling precedent |
| Whether a California insurance regulation imposes a duty on Mazda to notify Hagan of the repose deadline | Hagan raised (for first time on appeal) that a California regulation required notice, curing his delay | Mazda argued the case is governed by Texas law and the argument was not raised below | The court held the argument waived on appeal and rejected applying a California rule to a Texas sale and suit |
| Burden on summary judgment when asserting an affirmative defense (repose) | Hagan implicitly contended Mazda hadn’t irrefutably proved the defense | Mazda asserted it conclusively proved all repose elements (sale date, party, injury, filing date) | The court held Mazda met its burden; burden then shifted to Hagan who presented no controverting evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Stahl v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 283 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (defendant must irrefutably establish affirmative defense on summary judgment)
- CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175 (U.S. 2014) (statutes of repose generally may not be tolled)
- Fiengo v. Gen. Motors Corp., 225 S.W.3d 858 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (burden-shifting when repose defense is established)
- LeMaire v. Louisiana Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2007) (issues not raised in district court are waived on appeal)