Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RONALD GOODRICH AND CYNTHIA GOODRICH v. LUZERNE APPAREL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION (08/28/86)

filed: August 28, 1986.

RONALD GOODRICH AND CYNTHIA GOODRICH, APPELLANTS,
v.
LUZERNE APPAREL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS LUZERNE OUTERWEAR MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, SHAMOKIN AREA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, CUTLER-HAMER, INC., EATON CORPORATION, DAUPHIN ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES COMPANY, UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC., BECK ELECTRIC COMPANY, H.F. LENZ CO., WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, HAYES, LARGE, SUCKLING, & FRUTH, FORMERLY REA, HAYES, LARGE AND SUCKLING, FORMERLY CAMPBELL, REA, HAYES & LARGE, FORMERLY HUNTER, CAMPBELL, HAYES & LARGE, MIDDLE DEPARTMENT INSPECTION AGENCY, KEYSTONE INSPECTION AGENCY, AND ILSCO CORPORATION, V. C.F. KING T/D/B/A C.F. KING CONTRACTORS, AND JOHN F. MILES COMPANY, INC.



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County, Civil Division, at No. 4309 S 1983.

COUNSEL

Edward E. Knauss, IV, Harrisburg, for appellants.

Robert A. Lerman, York, for Luzerne Apparel, appellee.

Charles W. Rubendall, II, Harrisburg, for Underwriters, appellee.

Wickersham, Brosky and Watkins, JJ.

Author: Brosky

[ 356 Pa. Super. Page 149]

This case is before us on appeal from summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as UL). There is no argument by appellants that material issues of

[ 356 Pa. Super. Page 150]

    fact remain unresolved.*fn1 The sole issues for our consideration are: (1) Whether a party which approved the design of an electrical panel board can be said to have been involved in "performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision or observation of construction . . . of any improvement to real property" within the meaning of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5536; and (2) Whether that statute applies to designers of products. We find that the trial court correctly applied the statute to this case, and we therefore affirm.

Appellants filed a civil action against numerous defendants, including appellee UL. UL filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, claiming that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5536. Section (a) of that statute provides:

(a) General rule. -- Except as provided in subsection (b), a civil action or proceeding brought against any person lawfully performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision or observation of construction, or construction of any improvement to real property must be commenced within 12 years after completion of construction of such improvement to recover damages for:

(1) Any deficiency in the design, planning, supervision or observation of construction or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.