## Facts

- Stephen C. Taylor was injured when a chair collapsed while he was visiting his parents’ home in Bell County, Kentucky (July 2001).
- The chair had been purchased by Taylor’s parents from K-Mart and was manufactured by Compex International Company, Limited.
- Stephen and Laura Taylor sued Compex and K-Mart, asserting negligence, strict liability, breach of implied warranty (merchantability), and Laura Taylor’s loss-of-consortium claim.
- K-Mart was dismissed without prejudice due to bankruptcy proceedings.
- Compex asserted defenses including statute of limitations and lack of privity as to the implied-warranty claim.

## Issues

1. Whether KRS 355.2-318 permits a purchaser’s household guest to sue a remote manufacturer for personal injuries on an implied-warranty theory despite lack of contractual privity.
2. Whether KRS 355.2-318 extends implied-warranty obligations beyond the “seller” in the sales transaction to an upstream manufacturer.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Kentucky granted discretionary review on the warranty/privity question.
- The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ reinstatement of the implied-warranty claim against Compex.
- The Court held KRS 355.2-318 did not abolish the privity requirement for implied-warranty claims against a remote manufacturer.
- The Court reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the implied-warranty claim; as a result, all claims against Compex were dismissed (tort claims already time-barred).

## Legal Principles

- Implied-warranty claims under Kentucky’s UCC are contract-based and generally require privity between plaintiff and defendant absent clear statutory expansion.
- KRS 355.2-318 expands the class of persons who may benefit from a buyer-seller warranty relationship (e.g., family members and household guests), but does not, by itself, expand the class of defendants to include remote manufacturers.
- UCC Article 2 warranty provisions are oriented around the “seller” in the transaction; a manufacturer not acting as the seller is not automatically subject to implied-warranty liability to a non-privity plaintiff.
- A plaintiff may not use an implied-warranty theory to substitute for time-barred products-liability tort claims against a manufacturer when privity is absent and the statute does not expressly remove that barrier.

## Conclusion

Kentucky’s highest court held that KRS 355.2-318 does not dispense with privity for personal-injury implied-warranty claims against remote manufacturers, limiting warranty recovery to defendants within the relevant buyer-seller privity framework unless the legislature clearly provides otherwise.


Compex Int’l Co., Ltd. v. Taylor, 209 S.W.3d 462 (Ky. 2006)