## Facts

- Mack Trucks, Inc. bought air-brake assemblies from Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Co.
- Bendix manufactured the assemblies in Pennsylvania; Mack installed them in Pennsylvania.
- A truck using a Bendix brake assembly was sold and operated in Florida.
- A brake assembly allegedly failed in Florida, causing an accident and personal injuries.
- The injured party sued Mack in Florida and obtained a judgment of about $13,029.
- Mack paid the Florida judgment; a satisfaction of judgment was entered on June 30, 1960.
- On October 10, 1963, Mack filed a diversity action in federal court in Pennsylvania seeking indemnity from Bendix for the amount Mack paid in Florida.
- The district court applied Pennsylvania choice-of-law rules and Pennsylvania’s borrowing statute, treated the claim as arising in Florida, applied Florida’s limitations period, and dismissed the action as untimely.
- Mack appealed the dismissal to the Third Circuit.

## Issues

1. Under Pennsylvania’s borrowing statute and choice-of-law rules, did Mack’s indemnity claim “arise” in Florida, requiring application of Florida’s statute of limitations?
2. When did Mack’s indemnity claim accrue for limitations purposes (accident, judgment, or payment), and was the Pennsylvania action timely under the applicable limitations period?

## Decision

- The Third Circuit held that, for borrowing-statute purposes, the indemnity claim arose in Florida.
- The court applied Florida’s statute of limitations (as the shorter applicable period) rather than Pennsylvania’s.
- The court concluded Mack’s 1963 indemnity filing was time-barred even under an accrual theory most favorable to Mack (at or near payment in June 1960).
- The court affirmed dismissal of the indemnity action.

## Legal Principles

- Under Pennsylvania’s borrowing statute, when a cause of action arises outside Pennsylvania, a Pennsylvania forum applies the foreign jurisdiction’s shorter limitations period.
- For indemnity tied to out-of-state product-injury litigation, the place where the accident occurred and liability was imposed can be treated as the place where the cause of action arose, even if manufacturing and installation occurred in Pennsylvania.
- An indemnity claim commonly requires an actual loss (often payment) to mature, but borrowing-statute analysis may still make the claim untimely if the applicable foreign limitations period has run.
- Borrowing statutes serve policies of repose and limiting forum selection based on more generous limitations periods.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit treated the indemnity claim as arising in Florida because Mack’s loss stemmed from the Florida accident and resulting liability, applied Florida’s shorter limitations period through Pennsylvania’s borrowing statute, and held Mack’s Pennsylvania indemnity suit was filed too late.


Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Bendix-Westinghouse Auto. Air Brake Co., 372 F.2d 18 (3d Cir. 1966)