## Facts

- Peter M. Selzer purchased Marvin-manufactured wood windows for his home in 1990.
- Marvin sold the windows with a one-year written warranty and attached the warranty to each window as a matter of business policy.
- Marvin’s catalog stated that “all exterior wood is deep-treated to permanently protect against rot and decay.”
- About seven years after purchase, Selzer discovered significant wood rot and sought relief from Marvin; Marvin offered a discount on replacements, which Selzer rejected.
- Selzer sued asserting breach of express and implied warranties, false advertising under Wis. Stat. § 100.18, and strict responsibility and negligent misrepresentation.
- Selzer sought economic damages for repair/replacement costs and related damage associated with the windows; he did not claim personal injury or damage to property other than the product and related components.

## Issues

1. Whether Selzer’s express and implied warranty claims and his Wis. Stat. § 100.18 false-advertising claim were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
2. Whether Wisconsin’s economic loss doctrine barred Selzer’s strict responsibility and negligent misrepresentation claims where the alleged damages were purely economic and arose from a product-performance dispute.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Marvin Lumber & Cedar Company.
- The court held the express and implied warranty claims were time-barred because they accrued at tender of delivery in 1990 and were filed after the limitations period expired.
- The court held the “permanently protect against rot and decay” language did not constitute an explicit warranty of future performance sufficient to delay accrual.
- The court held the Wis. Stat. § 100.18 claim was time-barred because the actionable occurrence was the purchase induced by the advertising, not the later discovery of rot.
- The court held the economic loss doctrine barred the strict responsibility and negligent misrepresentation claims because Selzer alleged only economic loss arising from disappointed product expectations and no exception applied.

## Legal Principles

- Under Wisconsin UCC principles, breach-of-warranty claims generally accrue at tender of delivery, not at discovery of a defect, unless an explicit warranty of future performance applies.
- General promotional statements about product quality do not, without clear language, create an explicit future-performance warranty that delays accrual beyond delivery.
- A Wis. Stat. § 100.18 false-advertising claim accrues from the transaction allegedly induced by the advertisement; later manifestation of the defect does not reset accrual.
- Wisconsin’s economic loss doctrine limits plaintiffs to contract and warranty remedies for purely economic loss stemming from a product not performing as expected and generally precludes tort recovery for misrepresentation theories seeking the same economic damages.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of the homeowner’s claims because the warranty and statutory advertising theories were filed after the limitations periods ran, and the remaining tort misrepresentation claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine as an attempt to obtain tort remedies for purely economic product-performance losses.


Selzer v. Brunsell Bros., Ltd., 257 Wis. 2d 809 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002)