{ "id": 8525837, "name": "DANIEL JAMES REECE and wife, VICKIE WHITE REECE, Plaintiffs v. HOMETTE CORPORATION, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Reece v. Homette Corp.", "decision_date": "1993-06-01", "docket_number": "No. 9217SC353", "first_page": "462", "last_page": "467", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "110 N.C. App. 462" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "15 ALR4th 791", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "91 ALR3d 455", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "weight": 3, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "240 S.E.2d 345", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "350", "parenthetical": "\"Ordinarily, a breach of contract does not give rise to a tort action by the prom-isee against the promisor.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570898 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "81", "parenthetical": "\"Ordinarily, a breach of contract does not give rise to a tort action by the prom-isee against the promisor.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "422 S.E.2d 740", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "741-42" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 N.C. App. 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522464 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "65" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/108/0063-01" ] }, { "cite": "397 S.E.2d 76", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "adopting the rule set forth in 2000 Watermark Association, 784 F.2d 1183" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "327 N.C. 632", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2497060, 2497119, 2493908, 2495451, 2498943 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "adopting the rule set forth in 2000 Watermark Association, 784 F.2d 1183" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/327/0632-03", "/nc/327/0632-02", "/nc/327/0632-05", "/nc/327/0632-04", "/nc/327/0632-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 S.E.2d 674", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "adopting the rule set forth in 2000 Watermark Association, 784 F.2d 1183" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "327 N.C. 426", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2495140, 2494919, 2493403, 2493532, 2495199 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "adopting the rule set forth in 2000 Watermark Association, 784 F.2d 1183" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/327/0426-03", "/nc/327/0426-01", "/nc/327/0426-04", "/nc/327/0426-05", "/nc/327/0426-02" ] }, { "cite": "391 S.E.2d 211", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "217", "parenthetical": "adopting the rule set forth in 2000 Watermark Association, 784 F.2d 1183" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "98 N.C. App. 423", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524928 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "432", "parenthetical": "adopting the rule set forth in 2000 Watermark Association, 784 F.2d 1183" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/98/0423-01" ] }, { "cite": "784 F.2d 1183", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1548249 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1186" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/784/1183-01" ] }, { "cite": "766 F.2d 105", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 343757 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "109" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/766/0105-01" ] }, { "cite": "407 S.E.2d 819", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "822" }, { "page": "822" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "329 N.C. 727", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2553418 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "732" }, { "page": "732" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/329/0727-01" ] }, { "cite": "328 S.E.2d 274", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "279" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "313 N.C. 230", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4718465 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "238" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/313/0230-01" ] }, { "cite": "251 S.E.2d 457", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 503", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567817 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0503-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 S.E.2d 544", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "549" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 453", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572712 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "459" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0453-01" ] }, { "cite": "164 S.E.2d 889", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "3 N.C. App. 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554815 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/3/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "151 S.E.2d 582", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 N.C. 624", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564406 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/268/0624-01" ] }, { "cite": "372 S.E.2d 872", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "874" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 N.C. App. 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526170 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "549" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/91/0546-01" ] }, { "cite": "293 S.E.2d 405", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "412-13", "parenthetical": "footnote omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 435", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571111 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "446", "parenthetical": "footnote omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0435-01" ] }, { "cite": "276 S.E.2d 325", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "302 N.C. 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567370 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/302/0437-01" ] }, { "cite": "190 S.E.2d 189", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 697", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8576386 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0697-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 691, "char_count": 13377, "ocr_confidence": 0.761, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2086764270896628e-07, "percentile": 0.595370618132563 }, "sha256": "515c4eaf6463e3f442ee60daee9ada96600937af0b5f8ebac96fdbe6f9ffed02", "simhash": "1:997dd7a17757aecc", "word_count": 2152 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:54.224272+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges COZORT and WYNN concur." ], "parties": [ "DANIEL JAMES REECE and wife, VICKIE WHITE REECE, Plaintiffs v. HOMETTE CORPORATION, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nPlaintiffs contend that the trial court erred by granting defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56. We disagree.\nTo prevail on its motion for summary judgment, defendant must meet its burden of establishing the lack of a genuine issue as to any material fact and its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Page v. Sloan, 281 N.C. 697, 190 S.E.2d 189 (1972). Defendant may meet its burden by showing that plaintiffs cannot surmount an affirmative defense, such as the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, which would bar plaintiffs\u2019 claim. Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. 437, 276 S.E.2d 325 (1981). Defendant contends that the statute of limitations set forth in the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), G.S 25-2-725, operates to bar plaintiffs\u2019 claim. Plaintiffs argue that their claim is not barred procedurally because they \u201chave filed this action within the shorter of both periods\u201d established in G.S. 1-50(6) and G.S. 1-52(16). We conclude that in this factual situation G.S. 25-2-725 is the applicable statute of limitations and that it operates to bar plaintiffs\u2019 claim.\nPlaintiffs contend that their claim is not time barred because their claim is governed by G.S. 1-50(6), which provides that \u201c[n]o action for the recovery of damages for personal injury, death or damage to property based upon or arising out of any alleged defect or any failure in relation to a product shall be brought more than six years after the date of initial purchase for use or consumption.\u201d Plaintiffs argue that G.S. 1-50(6) is applicable because their claim for damage to their mobile home is based on the manufacturer\u2019s negligence. We disagree.\nG.S. 1-50(6) \u201cwas enacted in 1979 with Chapter 99B, the Products Liability statute. 1979 N.C. Sess. Laws, ch. 654 .... G.S. \u00a7 1-50(6) was enacted with Chapter 99B to cover those actions to which that chapter [99B] applies.\u201d Bernick v. Jurden, 306 N.C. 435, 446, 293 S.E.2d 405, 412-13 (1982) (footnote omitted). Here, plaintiffs seek recovery for damages to the mobile home, the product manufactured by defendant. In Cato Equipment Co. v. Matthews, 91 N.C. App. 546, 549, 372 S.E.2d 872, 874 (1988), this Court held that the provisions of Chapter 99B were inapplicable where the alleged defects of the product manufactured by defendant caused neither personal injury nor damage to property other than to the manufactured product itself. Accordingly, plaintiffs\u2019 complaint does not allege a viable claim under Chapter 99B, and G.S. 1-50(6), the statute of limitations for product liability actions brought under Chapter 99B, is inapplicable.\nAlternatively, plaintiffs argue that the statute of limitations found in G.S. 1-52(16) is applicable. G.S. 1-52(16) provides:\nUnless otherwise provided by statute, for personal injury or physical damage to claimant\u2019s property, the cause of action, except in causes of action referred to in G.S. l-15(c), shall not accrue until bodily harm to the claimant or physical damage to his property becomes apparent or ought reasonably to have become apparent to the claimant, whichever event first occurs. Provided that no cause of action shall accrue more than 10 years from the last act or omission of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action.\nIn accordance with the proviso \u201c[ujnless otherwise provided by statute,\u201d we conclude that G.S. 1-52(16) is rendered inapplicable by virtue of G.S. 25-2-725, which is more specifically applicable to plaintiffs\u2019 claim. Our Supreme Court has stated:\nWhere one of two statutes might apply to the same situation, the statute which deals more directly and specifically with the situation controls over the statute of more general applicability. National Food Stores v. North Carolina Board of Alcoholic Control, 268 N.C. 624, 151 S.E.2d 582 (1966); State ex rel. Utilities Comm. v. Union Electric Membership Corp., 3 N.C. App. 309, 164 S.E.2d 889 (1968). \u201cWhen two statutes apparently overlap, it is well established that the statute special and particular shall control over the statute general in nature, even if the general statute is more recent, unless it clearly appears that the legislature intended the general statute to control.\u201d Seders v. Powell, 298 N.C. 453, 459, 259 S.E.2d 544, 549 (1979); Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Neill, 296 N.C. 503, 251 S.E.2d 457 (1979).\nTrustees of Rowan Tech. v. Hammond Assoc., 313 N.C. 230, 238, 328 S.E.2d 274, 279 (1985).\nHere, plaintiffs seek recovery solely for damage to their mobile home, which was manufactured by defendant. The sale of a mobile home is a \u201ctransaction in goods.\u201d Alberti v. Manufactured Homes, Inc., 329 N.C. 727, 732, 407 S.E.2d 819, 822 (1991). Article 2 of Chapter 25, the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), applies to \u201ctransactions in goods.\u201d G.S. 25-2-102. Accordingly, the U.C.C. determines the rights of the parties here. Alberti, 329 N.C. at 732, 407 S.E.2d at 822.\nHere, plaintiffs\u2019 claim seeks recovery only for damage to the mobile home, the very product manufactured by defendant. This claim is substantially different from a claim arising from a factual situation where the manufactured product causes physical injury to a person or to property other than the manufactured product itself.\nThe U.C.C. is generally regarded as the exclusive source for ascertaining when the seller is subject to liability for damages if the claim is based on an intangible economic loss and not attributable to physical injury to person or to a tangible thing other than the defective product itself. Prosser and Keeton [on Torts], supra, \u00a7 95A, at 680 [5th ed. 1984]. If intangible economic loss were actionable under a tort theory, the U.C.C. provisions permitting assignment of risk by means of warranties and disclaimers would be rendered meaningless. It would be virtually impossible for a seller to sell a product \u201cas is\u201d because if the product did not meet the economic expectations of the buyer, the buyer would have an action under tort law. The U.C.C. represents a comprehensive statutory scheme which satisfies the needs of the world of commerce, and courts have been reluctant to extend judicial doctrines that might dislocate the legislative structure. Henry Heide, Inc. v. W R H Products Co., 766 F.2d 105, 109 (3d Cir. 1985).\n2000 Watermark Association, Inc. v. Celotex Corporation, 784 F.2d 1183, 1186 (4th Cir. 1986); see Chicopee, Inc. v. Sims Metal Works, 98 N.C. App. 423, 432, 391 S.E.2d 211, 217, disc. rev. denied, 327 N.C. 426, 395 S.E.2d 674, reconsid. denied, 327 N.C. 632, 397 S.E.2d 76 (1990) (adopting the rule set forth in 2000 Watermark Association, 784 F.2d 1183). Cf. Spillman v. American Homes, 108 N.C. App. 63, 65, 422 S.E.2d 740, 741-42 (1992) (\u201ca tort action does not lie against a party to a contract who simply fails to properly perform the terms of the contract, even if that failure to properly perform was due to the negligent or intentional conduct of that party, when the injury resulting from the breach is damage to the subject matter of the contract. It is the law of contract and not the law of negligence which defines the obligations and remedies of the parties in such a situation.\u201d); Ports Authority v. Roofing Co., 294 N.C. 73, 81, 240 S.E.2d 345, 350 (1978) (\u201cOrdinarily, a breach of contract does not give rise to a tort action by the prom-isee against the promisor.\u201d). Similarly, it would be anomalous to permit plaintiffs to circumvent the legislature\u2019s enactment of the U.C.C.\u2019s shorter statute of limitations specifically designed for claims arising from the \u201ctransaction of goods\u201d by virtue of a more general statute of limitations such as that found in G.S. 1-52(16).\nIn the U.C.C., G.S. 25-2-725 provides that:\n(1) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued. By the original agreement the parties may reduce the period of limitation to not less than one year but may not extend it.\n(2) A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party\u2019s lack of knowledge of the breach. A breach of warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made, except that where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered.\nHere, the manufacturer\u2019s express warranty covered a period of approximately one year. Defendant tendered delivery of the mobile home in April 1986. Plaintiffs noticed the water damage over four years later in September 1990 and did not file their complaint until 9 April 1991. Accordingly, plaintiff has no right to recovery under the manufacturer\u2019s express warranty due to its expiration. Having filed their complaint on 9 April 1991, plaintiffs also failed to commence this action within four years after defendant tendered delivery. G.S. 25-2-725.\nIn sum, we conclude that plaintiff\u2019s action is barred by the statute of limitations found in G.S. 25-2-725.\nAffirmed.\nJudges COZORT and WYNN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "EAGLES, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Donnelly & DiRusso, by F. Christian DiRusso, for plaintiff-appellants.", "Smith Helms Mull\u00eds & Moore, by Robert A. Wicker and Christine T. Nero, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DANIEL JAMES REECE and wife, VICKIE WHITE REECE, Plaintiffs v. HOMETTE CORPORATION, Defendant\nNo. 9217SC353\n(Filed 1 June 1993)\n1. Limitations, Repose, and Laches \u00a7 27 (NCI4th); Products Liability \u00a7 1 (NCI4th)\u2014 failure to state products liability claim \u2014 statute of limitations\nPlaintiffs\u2019 complaint does not allege a claim under the Products Liability Act, N.C.G.S. Ch. 99B, where plaintiffs seek recovery for damages to a mobile home manufactured by defendant and the alleged defects in the mobile home caused neither personal injury nor damage to property other than to the manufactured product itself. Accordingly, the statute of limitations for products liability actions brought under Ch. 99B, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-50(6), is inapplicable.\nAm Jur 2d, Products Liability \u00a7\u00a7 1-4, 909-923.\nProducts liability: what statute of limitations governs actions based on strict liability in tort. 91 ALR3d 455.\n2. Limitations, Repose, and Laches \u00a7 27 (NCI4th)\u2014 negligent manufacture of mobile home \u2014statute of limitations\nThe proviso \u201c[ujnless otherwise provided by statute\u201d in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-52(16) rendered the statute of limitations set forth in that statute inapplicable to plaintiffs\u2019 claim for damages allegedly caused by defendant\u2019s negligent manufacture, design and inspection of a mobile home purchased by plaintiffs because the sale of a mobile home is a \u201ctransaction in goods\u201d covered by the Uniform Commercial Code, and N.C.G.S. \u00a7 25-2-725 is more specifically applicable to plaintiffs\u2019 claim.\nAm Jur 2d, Products Liability \u00a7\u00a7 909-923.\nProducts liability: what statute of limitations governs actions based on strict liability in tort. 91 ALR3d 455.\n3. Limitations, Repose, and Laches \u00a7 27 (NCI4th); Uniform Commercial Code \u00a7 11 (NCI3d(\u2014 breach of warranty of mobile home \u2014claim barred by statute of limitations\nPlaintiffs\u2019 claim for damages to their mobile home manufactured by defendant was barred by the statute of limitations where defendant\u2019s express warranty covered one year as permitted by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 25-2-725, and plaintiffs\u2019 claim was filed after the express warranty had expired. Furthermore, the claim was also barred under the four-year limitation of \u00a7 25-2-725 where it was filed more than four years after defendant tendered delivery of the mobile home to plaintiffs.\nAm Jur 2d, Products Liability \u00a7\u00a7 909-923.\nProducts liability: what statute of limitations governs actions based on strict liability in tort. 91 ALR3d 455.\nPre-emption of strict liability in tort by provisions of UCC Article 2. 15 ALR4th 791.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from judgment signed 29 November 1991 by Judge Howard R. Greeson, Jr. in Surry County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 March 1993.\nOn 29 March 1986, plaintiffs signed a contract to buy a mobile home manufactured by defendant. Defendant delivered the mobile home in April 1986. Defendant is a wholly owned subdivision of Skyline Corporation. The mobile home came with a \u201cFull One Year Warranty\u201d which stated that \u201cManufacturing defects reported to Skyline within one year and ten days after original delivery by an authorized dealer will be corrected on site, without charge and within reasonable times.\u201d\nIn September 1990 (over four years after defendant delivered the mobile home to plaintiffs) plaintiffs noticed \u201cstain and water damage where the walls meet the ceiling\u201d in their mobile home. On 9 April 1991, plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking relief for the damage to their mobile home, alleging inter alia defendant\u2019s negligent manufacture, negligent design, and negligent inspection of the mobile home. On 7 June 1991, defendant filed an answer pleading the affirmative defense of the expiration of the statute of limitations and alleging that \u201cplaintiffs were contributorily negligent in that plaintiffs failed to properly vent the foundation of the manufactured/mobile home and, upon information and belief, had gutters incorrectly and improperly attached and installed.\u201d On 11 October 1991, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56. On 29 November 1991, the trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal.\nDonnelly & DiRusso, by F. Christian DiRusso, for plaintiff-appellants.\nSmith Helms Mull\u00eds & Moore, by Robert A. Wicker and Christine T. Nero, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0462-01", "first_page_order": 492, "last_page_order": 497 }