Preview:

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Hillsborough-southern judicial district No. 2011-151 PHANEUF FUNERAL HOME v. LITTLE GIANT PUMP COMPANY & a. Argued: April 11, 2012 Opinion Issued: June 29, 2012 Sherman Law, PLLC, of Portsmouth (John P. Sherman on the brief), and Cozen O'Connor, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Joseph F. Rich on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff. Law Offices of John B. Schulte, of Manchester (Nicholas J. Deleault on the brief and orally), for defendant Little Giant Pump Company. Mallory & Friedman, PLLC, of Concord (Christine Friedman on the brief and orally), for defendant Boyer Interior Design.

Cornell & Gollub, of Boston, Massachusetts (Peter M. Durney on the brief), and Littleton Joyce Ughetta Park & Kelly LLP, of Purchase, New York (Jason P. Sultzer on the brief and orally), for defendant Leviton Manufacturing Company. Law Offices of Thomas M. Niarchos, of Boston, Massachusetts (David J. Donovan on the brief and orally), for defendant The Elegant Earth, Inc. d/b/a The Arbor. LYNN, J. The plaintiff, Phaneuf Funeral Home (Phaneuf),1 appeals orders of the Superior Court (Colburn, J.) granting motions for summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Little Giant Pump Company (Little Giant), Boyer Interior Design (Boyer), Leviton Manufacturing Company (Leviton), and The Elegant Earth, Inc. (Elegant). We affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Boyer, but otherwise reverse. I The record reflects the following facts. In 1998, Phaneuf hired Boyer to do interior design and light renovation work in the basement and adjacent hallway of the funeral home. In the hallway, Boyer installed a wall-mounted water fountain that it purchased from Elegant, an Alabama-based household goods retailer. Defendant Leviton supplied the fountain's power cord to Little Giant, which manufactured the fountain. The water fountain was pre-assembled, and could be used simply by hanging it from the wall and plugging it into an existing wall power outlet. Phaneuf, however, wanted something more permanent that would blend with the wall. To satisfy this preference, Boyer designed a back plate to be affixed to the wall, attached the fountain to the back plate, and used a faux finish paint application to blend the fountain and the back plate with the wall. Boyer finished installing the water fountain in January 1999. On March 17, 2007, a fire broke out at the funeral home. Alleging that the water fountain's defective pump and power cord caused the fire, Phaneuf brought negligence and strict product liability claims against each defendant, although it later withdrew its negligence claim against Boyer. Each defendant
Although nominally brought in the name of its insured, Phaneuf Funeral Home, the real plaintiff in interest in this case is State Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, which, after paying Phaneuf's claim for damages arising out of the fire, brought this subrogation action against the defendants.
1

2

moved for summary judgment, arguing that Phaneuf's claims were time-barred by RSA 508:4-b, I (2010), the statute of repose for "Damages From Construction." The superior court agreed, and granted each motion. This appeal followed. II The statute of repose for damages from construction provides, in pertinent part: Except as otherwise provided in this section, all actions to recover damages . . . arising out of any deficiency in the creation of an improvement to real property, including without limitation the design, labor, materials, engineering, planning, surveying, construction, observation, supervision or inspection of that improvement, shall be brought within 8 years from the date of substantial completion of the improvement, and not thereafter. RSA 508:4-b, I. Phaneuf concedes that its action was filed outside the eight-year time period set forth in RSA 508:4-b, but argues: (1) that this statute is inapplicable to product liability actions;2 (2) that the fountain did not constitute an "improvement to real property" as the statute requires; and (3) in the alternative, that the statute applies only to those who provide products and services that are particularized to or "specifically designed" for the improvement in which they are used or incorporated

Download 2011-151, Phaneuf Funeral Home v. Little Giant Pump Company & a..pdf

New Hampshire Law