## Facts

- On June 9, 2015, D’Jaris Moore was driving in Jasper County, South Carolina, when a tow dolly being pulled by a tow truck driven by Robert Murphy detached and struck Moore’s vehicle.
- Elite Metal Performance, LLC manufactured the tow dolly; Elite’s only place of business was in North Carolina, where it designed, built, and sold the dolly.
- Elite sold the dolly to a dealer that operated only in Florida; the dealer then sold the dolly in Florida to Murphy, a Florida resident.
- Moore sued Murphy, the Florida dealer, and Elite, including a claim against Elite for breach of warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
- Moore settled with Murphy and the Florida dealer, leaving the warranty claim against Elite as the remaining dispute.
- Elite moved for summary judgment, arguing that South Carolina warranty law did not govern and that, under the applicable UCC law, Moore could not recover on a warranty theory.

## Issues

1. Under South Carolina choice-of-law rules, which state’s UCC governed Moore’s breach-of-warranty claim against the manufacturer: South Carolina (place of injury) or North Carolina/Florida (places tied to manufacture and sale)?
2. Under the governing state’s UCC, could Moore, who was not the purchaser, maintain a breach-of-warranty claim against Elite?

## Decision

- The court applied South Carolina choice-of-law rules and determined that the warranty claim was governed by the UCC law of North Carolina or Florida (which were materially the same for the issue presented), not South Carolina’s.
- Applying North Carolina/Florida law, the court concluded Moore could not pursue the asserted breach-of-warranty claim against Elite on these facts.
- The court granted Elite’s motion for summary judgment on the breach-of-warranty claim.

## Legal Principles

- In a federal diversity case, the forum state’s choice-of-law rules determine which state’s substantive law governs a state-law claim.
- Warranty claims under the UCC are treated as arising from the sales transaction, so the governing law is commonly tied to the state with the strongest connection to the manufacture and sale, not necessarily the place where the accident occurred.
- Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Under UCC warranty law as applied in North Carolina and Florida for this dispute, warranty rights do not automatically extend to every injured third party; whether a non-purchaser may sue depends on the scope of the warranty and the jurisdiction’s limits on who may enforce it.

## Conclusion

The court held that the controlling UCC law for Moore’s warranty claim was that of North Carolina or Florida because the relevant contacts centered on the manufacture and sales chain in those states, not the later accident in South Carolina; under that governing law, Moore could not maintain the breach-of-warranty claim against Elite, so summary judgment was entered for the manufacturer.


Moore v. Elite Metal Performance, LLC, 2017 WL 5642349 (2017)