## Facts

- L. H. Poppenheimer purchased a GMC motor home from Bluff City Motor Homes on June 25, 1973.
- He alleged defects including that the vehicle was overweight and had an improper rear suspension design causing failure to ride level and excessive tire wear.
- The written “GMC Motor Home New Vehicle Warranty” provided that, for 12 months or 12,000 miles, the manufacturer would repair defects in materials or workmanship, subject to limitations and exclusions.
- Poppenheimer filed three actions arising from the purchase:
  - First complaint filed March 18, 1977; voluntarily dismissed March 2, 1978.
  - Second complaint filed May 2, 1978; voluntarily dismissed June 20, 1980.
  - Third complaint filed June 18, 1981; later amended on September 4, 1982 to plead breach of express warranty based on the written warranty.
- The dealer and manufacturer moved for summary judgment, asserting the claims were time-barred; the material dates were not disputed.

## Issues

1. Whether the four-year limitations period for contracts for sale under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-725 barred the express warranty claims based on the June 25, 1973 delivery date and later refilings.
2. Whether the written new-vehicle warranty “explicitly extends to future performance of the goods,” delaying accrual until discovery of the defect under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-725.
3. Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105 (the saving statute) preserved the third action following successive voluntary nonsuits.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the dealer and the manufacturer.
- The court held the warranty claim accrued at tender of delivery on June 25, 1973, and the four-year period expired in June 1977.
- The court held the repair warranty did not “explicitly” extend to future performance so as to delay accrual under § 47-2-725.
- The court held the saving statute did not permit successive nonsuits to create new, additional one-year refiling periods that would make the third action timely.
- Because the dispositive dates were undisputed and showed the claims were untimely, summary judgment was proper.

## Legal Principles

- Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-725, an action for breach of a sales contract (including breach of warranty) must be brought within four years of accrual.
- For breach of warranty, accrual occurs at tender of delivery, regardless of the buyer’s lack of knowledge, unless a warranty explicitly extends to future performance and discovery must await that performance.
- A “new vehicle warranty” limited to repairs for a stated time or mileage is treated as a repair/remedy undertaking, not an explicit warranty of future performance that delays accrual.
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105 allows refiling within one year after a nonsuit only within its statutory scope and does not permit repeated refilings after multiple nonsuits to extend limitations indefinitely.
- When a summary judgment movant shows undisputed dates establishing a limitations bar, the nonmovant must produce evidence creating a genuine dispute; unsupported allegations are insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court held that the breach of express warranty claim accrued upon delivery under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-725, the repair warranty did not qualify for the future-performance accrual exception, and the saving statute did not permit repeated nonsuits to extend the filing period; the third action was therefore time-barred and summary judgment was affirmed.


Poppenheimer v. Bluff City Motor Homes, 658 S.W.2d 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983)