## Facts

- Den-Mat manufactured and marketed porcelain dental veneers, advertising that the veneers would not discolor or loosen.
- Brenda Golden saw the advertising, contacted Den-Mat, and was referred to Dr. Carissa M. Gill, a dentist who used Den-Mat products.
- Golden purchased the veneers and had Dr. Gill place them.
- Golden alleged the veneers became discolored and stained despite assurances from Den-Mat and Dr. Gill that they would retain their appearance.
- Golden sued Den-Mat and Dr. Gill asserting breach of implied warranties under UCC Article 2 and violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA).
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants after treating the claims as professional negligence/tort claims and applying a two-year limitations period.
- Golden appealed, arguing her claims were product-based warranty and KCPA claims subject to different limitations rules.

## Issues

1. Whether claims based on allegedly discolored veneers should be characterized as UCC Article 2 implied-warranty claims (sale of goods) or as professional negligence/tort claims subject to a two-year statute of limitations.
2. When the KCPA limitations period accrues in a consumer transaction involving alleged misrepresentations—at the time of the transaction or when the damage later manifests.

## Decision

- The appellate court held the district court erred by recharacterizing the implied-warranty claims as professional negligence and by applying the two-year tort limitations period.
- The court held Golden’s allegations about veneer quality and performance stated claims cognizable under UCC Article 2 implied warranties, triggering the UCC’s four-year limitations period for breach of warranty in the sale of goods.
- For the KCPA claim, the court held the limitations period begins when the alleged KCPA violation occurs—at the time of the consumer transaction/misrepresentation—not when resulting harm is later discovered.
- The court reversed summary judgment in significant part and remanded for further proceedings under the proper legal framework and limitations rules.

## Legal Principles

- In mixed goods-and-services settings, claim characterization turns on the nature of the complaint: product-quality allegations may sound in UCC warranty rather than professional negligence.
- A sale of goods supporting implied-warranty claims is governed by the UCC’s four-year statute of limitations for breach of warranty.
- Professional negligence claims are governed by a two-year tort limitations period, but that period does not control when the gravamen is breach of warranty regarding a sold product.
- KCPA claims accrue when the alleged deceptive act or practice occurs in the consumer transaction, generally at the time of sale or misrepresentation.

## Conclusion

The court required analysis of the veneer dispute as a product-based transaction for implied-warranty purposes under UCC Article 2, rejecting a blanket malpractice characterization, and held that KCPA timeliness is measured from the consumer transaction when the alleged violation occurred, leading to reversal and remand.


Golden v. Den-Mat Corp., 47 Kan. App. 2d 450, 276 P.3d 773 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012)