## Facts

- James E. McIntosh was injured on June 9, 1993, in an accident involving a Clark “Bobcat” skid-steer loader manufactured by Melroe Company.
- The loader had been delivered to its initial user or consumer on September 9, 1980.
- James and Sondra McIntosh sued alleging product defect and seeking damages, including loss of consortium.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment under Indiana’s product-liability statute of repose requiring suit within ten years of delivery to the initial user or consumer.
- Plaintiffs did not dispute the 1980 delivery date but argued the repose statute violated Article I, Sections 12 and 23 of the Indiana Constitution.
- The trial court granted summary judgment; the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Indiana Supreme Court accepted transfer to address the constitutional claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Indiana’s ten-year product-liability statute of repose violates Article I, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution by barring claims for injuries occurring more than ten years after initial delivery.
2. Whether the statute of repose violates Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution by granting unequal privileges or immunities (an immunity from suit) to manufacturers of older products.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court held the ten-year product-liability statute of repose is constitutional under Article I, Sections 12 and 23.
- The Court affirmed summary judgment for defendants because the loader was delivered to the initial user more than ten years before the injury and suit.
- The Court concluded Section 12 does not require preservation of particular common-law tort remedies and permits prospective legislative limits on causes of action.
- The Court concluded Section 23 was not violated because the repose period is a generally applicable legislative classification that applies uniformly to all similarly situated manufacturers and products.

## Legal Principles

- Article I, Section 12 guarantees access to courts for claims recognized under governing law but does not constitutionalize specific common-law causes of action or bar the legislature from prospectively limiting or abolishing them.
- A statute of repose that extinguishes product-liability claims after a fixed period from initial delivery is a permissible legislative limit on liability exposure.
- Under Article I, Section 23, legislative classifications are valid if they are reasonably related to differences between classes and apply uniformly to all similarly situated persons; a uniform repose period for all manufacturers/products can satisfy this standard.

## Conclusion

Indiana’s ten-year product-liability statute of repose validly barred the plaintiffs’ claims because the product was delivered to the initial user more than ten years before the accident, and the statute did not violate the state constitution’s open-courts or equal-privileges provisions.


McIntosh v. Melroe Co., 729 N.E.2d 972 (Ind. 2000)